Leaders speak more, talk less
Have you ever been around someone who asks a question and then doesn’t say another word for the next five minutes? They just sit there and let others give their opinions. How do you handle this scenario? I often make the mistake of continuing to talk in order to fill the void of silence. I talk simply to make myself more comfortable than to move toward a solution.
I always say something that I regret.
A good leader is secure enough in himself in himself that he can just sit there and let other nervous people talk. He is comfortable in his own skin and does not feel the need to contantly defend himself or his ideas. They stand alone. He is more interested in making the right decision than he is in advancing his own career or standing in the room. Before I enter a meeting, I have a serious discussion with myself that goes something like this, “Self, keep your mouth shut until you are sure that you are absolutely sure that you have something good to say and then only say it to the person next to you. Let him repeat it if it is a good idea. If it stinks, he will get blamed.”
The right decision becomes apparent to the leader as he listens to others talk and as he thinks about he problem from every angle. The good leader subscribes to the Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) adage:
It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool
than to open it and remove all doubt.
Leaders lead Leaders
I was reading the article entitled, “Leadership Run Amok” on the Bnet Today and was immediately struck by the idea that one of the difference between a good leader and a poor leader is that a good leader cultivates leadership ability within the lives of those under his leadership.
Some leaders make the mistake of trying to force those below him in the management structure to conform to his ideas. A better approach is to lay out the mission and philosophy - from the top - and then solicit ideas from those who will actually carry out the work. The leader measures the new ideas against the mission and philosophy and then gives approval for the initiative. This structure has some great advantages.
It keeps the discussion from becoming personal. Policy is discussed in an objective manner - ideas are measured against mission and philosophy of the organization, not against the subjective personality of the person in charge. Disagreement may arrise on the philosophical and missional level, not over details. Ideas are accepted or rejected on their merits, not the whims of leadership. This set-up helps to avoid personal offenses and keeps the discussion focused on the issues.
Under this paradigm, the confrontation that happens in the committee meetings is structured so that all are encouraged to submit ideas to accomplish the mission. If colleagues disagree on the missional level, there are three choices that can be made:
- Submit to and support the mission.
- Leave to find a place where you agree with the mission.
- Seek to change the mission.
It is up to leadership to handle each situation without personal offense and mold your team into a cohesive unit that is bound by the mission.
The leader can fully harness the energy of the subordinate when they know they are free to submit solutions to the challenges presented by the mission. When a solution is approved by the leader, the coworker has immediate ownership of the idea and the supervisor can entrust the individuals that he oversees with the responsibility to accomplish the task. The subordinate has ownership of the idea and can be expected to assume leadership in his area.
The leader and the busybody
Folks who have been entrusted with a position of leadership cannot afford to be influenced by the grapevine. The rumor mill is dominated by small naysayers who generally do not have all the facts. If the ”gossiper” has a constructive concern, he should confront the leaders without malice, or if the leader will not respond to his concerns - he should seek to become a leader himself. It is remarkable that many who criticize the top, refuse positions at the top when it is offered.
I am sometimes reminded of the well-known tableau from the old west where a sheriff and his deputy could silence or defeat a mob by threatening or singling out a single leader. It goes something like this: the mob comes roiling up the street only to come to halt in front of the lone law man in the middle of the street with a rifle in his arms. The two dozen outlaws can easily overrun the sheriff, but he trains his gun on the foremost bandit, looks him in the eye and says, “Big Honcho, if anyone moves, I will put a bullet in your ear.” There is an uncomfortable silence as Big Honcho considers the stakes: a win for the team and a loss for his own personal health versus a loss for the team and preservation of his own skin. In most instances, he will pick his own skin and the mob fades away. Gossip leaders are similar - they gossip because they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to deal with policy and ideas head-on.
When confronted with an honest, open opportunity to air his greivances, the talebearer will either rise to the challenge and become a leader who is willing stick his neck out - or tuck tail and mumble about a misunderstanding.
So how do leaders deal with the surruptitious discussions in the peanut gallery? Some try make decisions based on what others are saying or will say - constantly changing their initial decision in responce to the latest round of gossip. Another leader will attempt to address every single concern in public statements - a solution style that results in page long emails to explain the latest nuance in the dress code. Still other leaders attempt to squelch all gossip or non-formal conversations about their policies by making (sometimes unfounded) accusations or idle threats.
The reality is, people are going to talk - no matter what.
If you are uncomfortable making decisions that others will talk about, then you need to reconsider your desire for a leadership position. At home, my toddlers do not determine their own bedtime. They are free to complain and gossip about their father all they like, but I am responsible for their health. I know that my decision is based on truth and their best interests. They will understand someday, but for now, they might have a bad attitude.
The same principle is in place in the workplace. A leader cannot worry about gossip. Lay out the problem, encourage discussion, request input from others, get all the facts, and finally, make a decision that advances the mission. The opinions of people who refuse to ellucidate their questions and concerns in a public meeting are not worth considering.
Be sure you’re right, then go ahead!
Servant Leadership
Is the title of this post oxymoronic? Who can be a servant and yet still a leader? Can one who is in leadership lower himself to serve?
The truth is that a good leader is a servant. He serves the people who he leads. The best leader does not look out for his own best interests, but for the interests of the whole.
Do we see any such leaders today?