Our culture is very sensitive to roles. What do you do — meaning what is your title/role — is a favorite first question when meeting someone new. The problem with categorizing people by their role is that they don’t always live up to it.
As participants in this culture of role fixation, we convince ourselves we are our role. As such, we act in ways we believe to be in keeping with our role. We dress the part. We say things that someone in that role should say. Our approach to work becomes a complex to do list of acting. The problem with such a role-based approach is the lack of focus on real results.
If we live entirely within the scripted confines of our role, we dare not venture out into innovative behaviors that may stray from the role we believe we must uphold. Our performance becomes stale. The mark of success becomes whether or not we played the part successfully.
Rather than role, we should subscribe to an approach predicated on purpose. What is my purpose? — should be the permission giving perspective that motivates us to try new strategies, implement unique approaches and see our corner of the world in a different light.
We are placed in someone’s life for a purpose. We are assigned a difficult task for a purpose. We are responsible for identifying the purpose we serve in every aspect of our life. It is within that lens of purpose that we become a benefit to our organization and community. Purpose is the core of who we are and not what we are called. Role leads to living up to a title while purpose entails living up to a calling. Find your purpose.
There is a long-standing organizational principle that states the performance of an organization is predicated on the effectiveness of the organization, which in turn is a reflection of the congruence or fit of the various subunits within the organization. In other words, if the departments or functions of a company don’t work well together — the overall performance of the enterprise will suffer.
In error, we often recognize and reward leaders for accomplishments related to the specific performance of their area of responsibility. We rarely view their performance from an integrated systems perspective as to how well they play with others and effectively support the overall strategy of the company. Do what you do best — becomes our plea, their goal, creating an isolationist leader. They succeed at the micro-organizational level by garnering resources, hoarding information, stealing talent and building an island empire unto themselves. On paper, their island is highly productive, yet, as a cog in the overall machine of the organization they are disconnected — spinning freely without engagement with other parts of the machine.
These isolationist leaders, if left to their own island, become significant barriers in the organizational march to become more integrated. As the organization is faced with responding to external challenges, these leaders close the ranks on their island and fail to engage in the necessary strategic retro-fit necessary to compete. They are not to be blamed in the overall scheme of history. They are what we have made them. They have been allowed and even lauded for their isolationist strategies. The informal arrangements of the company recognize they are not to be bothered, challenged or assumed to be cooperative. As leaders, we have allowed them to plant their flag of independence at the expense of organizational performance.
When faced with organizational change, we must integrate every subunit of our organization around a shared strategy that reflects the current environment. Isolationist leaders don’t go quietly. They often must be overthrown in a confusing turn about of leadership priorities. We allowed them for years to rule their own nation — what has changed, they wonder. The change is the necessity of change. The organizational principle remains the same — strategic success is only found in the full integration of every unit of our organization. Isolationist leaders must be overthrown.
Ask a senior leader what makes them so good, or why they receive a premium level of pay and they will likely give a slightly veiled comment regarding their superior ability to create a vision or lead the masses to world-class performance. Most leaders do not have an appreciation for why they are on the payroll.
In the macro scope of an organization, leaders are hired for their judgment. The ability to judge internal and external organizational forces, and apply knowledge and wisdom within those situational forces, is the commodity that organizations employ. Yet, leaders discount the importance of their judgment by taking personal risks that could damage their perceived ability to judge appropriateness, people and moral questions.
The stakes of leadership are high. The leader that recognizes and protects their judgment commodity will view their reputation as something that is always visible, continually under scrutiny and the essence of their leadership. Poor judgment regarding any matter threatens the overall effectiveness of the leader. Guard your judgment.
Leadership Transparency
Trust is the glue that aligns leaders with their followers. Yet, employee surveys often reveal an underlying distrust of leadership. The disconnect comes as leaders often assume that trust is granted to them based on the position they hold in the organization. The opposite is often the case as employees have been taught to distrust leaders for good reason.
Leaders often act without fully vetting the implications of their actions for their employees. What appear to be edicts designed to organize and control work, often end up making life more difficult for the staff. To paraphrase Peter Drucker — So much of what we call management is found in making it more difficult for people to do their job. A leader that layers complexity and creates barriers in the high pursuit of managing their corner of the organization elicits distrust from their employees.
Trust is created between leaders and their team when the leader is transparent and accessible. Transparency without accessibility creates an entertaining yet incomplete relationship while accessibility without transparency creates an emotionless boss. When transparency is allowed to demonstrate concern on the part of the leader as well as a human element that is capable of failure, accessibility solidifies the relationship and creates a bond of trust.
Authentic leaders possess the self-awareness necessary to be transparently accessible in a manner that promotes employee trust and well-being. Have the courage to be transparent and accessible.
