Leading Effectively Series
|
I recently worked with a very high-performing team of government leaders. We were working together trying to hone their leadership edge and create an even better synergy within the team.
During the discussions, the team (a group of high performers within the Federal Government) revealed the immensity of their challenges – they had a ton of money to manage, and hundreds of pieces of legislation to track – where would they have time to do leadership development or team building?
As one senior official stated, the plate is overflowing and yet others keep putting more on it.
This is a challenge facing many government agencies – it is both a sign of their importance as well as a unique compliment of others trust in their ability to handle such a difficult workload. The question remains, however, how to manage such a workload?
 This reminds me of the traveler who once asked the village chief how to eat an elephant? ‘One bite at a time’ was the reply.
Like the village chief, this high-performing team may want to look at how they can slowly take little bites and begin to make headway against the overflowing plate. There are a number of options to address overwork or over-tasking. Some include reviewing team roles, updating team priorities, creating efficient processes – and… yes, even making the time for leadership development and teamwork reflection.
I can hear the refrain – we don’t have time!
I wonder if we looked at time differently, a new perspective would enlighten us with an answer. Instead of looking at time as a boundary, lets look at time as an investment. If you invest time now in team building, could it return more time later? Research demonstrates the time spent in learning and reflection results in improved communication, efficiency, and trust within teams.
In addition, CCL research and others have demonstrated time and again the importance of reflective time for senior executives.
Thinking about time as an investment helps us to realize the return on its potential. Instead of looking at everything on the plate. Lets look at how we eat it, the time it takes to eat, and where we are investing that time at the current moment. Performing this quick analysis may reveal the amount of time being wasted, instead of invested in key priorities.
Using this temporal analysis is a wise investment that will help the team address that overloaded plate… one bite at a time.
Franklin D. Roosevelt used those words to describe the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. September 11, 2001 was another day which will live in infamy after a premeditated series of equally dastardly attacks. 9/11 was the culmination of more than 20 years of terrorist attacks on Americans:
· The US Embassy in Tehran takeover (1979)
· the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut (1983),
· the Achille Lauro hijacking (1985),
· Pan Am flight 103 bombing (1988),
· the first World Trade Towers bombing (1993),
· the Khobar Towers bombing (1996),
· US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya (1998),
· attack on the USS Cole (2000), among others.
No longer could we ignore the conflict which was being thrust upon us by people who hate what we represent.
Watching the television news this morning before coming to work I could not help but be taken back to the events of that tragic day. I was teaching at the U.S. Military Academy just 50 miles north of Manhattan on the banks of the Hudson River. It was a bright, clear, beautiful late summer morning in New York. One of the hijacked planes flew right down the river not far from where I worked using it as a guide on the way to its final destination.
The events that unfolded that day were horrendous. The televised scenes of airliners crashing into the World Trade Towers, people leaping from the burning buildings, the subsequent collapse of the twin towers, the sorrow and anguish of the witnesses covered in soot and ash, the Pentagon in flames, and the crater near Shanksville, Pennsylvania from United Flight 93 all shocked our national consciousness. I watched with horror the video of the heroic firemen and police rushing to the scene of the disaster as survivors fled in the opposite direction, knowing they were going to their deaths. Learning later the details of what unfolded on those four doomed flights made us wonder at what kind of evil could commit such acts.
I spoke that morning to a group of frightened, bewildered West Point plebes who were in a reading efficiency class offered by my department. The instructor scrapped the lesson plan that morning and I came in to reassure the students instead. I compared their class to the class which entered West Point in the summer of 1941. They entered the Academy with their country at peace but now the nation been plunged into war by events not of our choosing. We had no idea of what was to come but only knew that our world had changed forever in an instant. Those cadets graduated in 2005 and were commissioned to lead an Army at war, with most serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, many serving multiple tours.
As horrible as that day was, the days, weeks, and months which followed saw a sense of national unity which had not been witnessed for a long time. People volunteered in the recovery efforts, gave blood, donated money, flew the American flag, and joined together in defiance of the forces of hate which had brought this evil to our shores. The divisions which separated us, melted away before our common threat. The American spirit, battered and bruised by the attacks of 9/11, arose out of the ashes like the phoenix with a sense of pride and defiance.
Why was America attacked? As Ronald Reagan once said, “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.” The principles of Liberty, Democracy, and the rights of men and women for which we stand are antithetical to the forces which attacked us. Winston Churchill once remarked, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” We Americans are blessed to have been born in a country which grants us unparalleled opportunities to rise on our own merits and make the most of our potential.
So, on this day of remembrance, eight years after we were attacked and awoken from our slumber, let us remember our sense of national unity and those things which bind us together. Recall the spirit national harmony that arose in the dark days following 9/11 and work together in solidarity to defend our nation and make it better for all of its citizens. We must remember that there are still forces in this world which mean us harm and vow, as Churchill said during the Blitz, to “never, never, never give up.”
I recently had the honor to represent CCL and speak on a leadership panel at a conference hosted by the US Army on the Future Operational Environment: 2009-2025.The goal of the conference was to assess the implications of the future operational environment on leader development, capabilities and concepts, and training. In addition to CCL, the Army invited panelists from a widely divergent cross-section of private industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the public sector. It demonstrated to me that the Army is thinking creatively as it considers the future and taps into the best ideas from across our nation.
 Ori Brafman, co-author of The Starfish and the Spider was the conference’s keynote speaker. I became intrigued and listened to the audiobook during my travels in the subsequent weeks. The premise of the book is that, although a starfish and a spider have a similar appearance, they are very different creatures.
Cut off the head of a spider and it dies.
Cut off the arm of a starfish and it regenerates an entirely new starfish.
The analogy is that traditional, hierarchical organizations such as the Federal Government are spider-like and are vulnerable to disruption. By contrast, decentralized organizations such as the Apache Indians and Al Qaeda are starfish-like organizations which can morph and grow under pressure and are difficult to defeat. However, each type of organization has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages. Brafman and his co-author, Rob Beckstrom, conclude that the hybrid organizations, combining the best of both types, are the most resilient and effective.
What do starfish and spiders have to do with CCL and leadership development in the Federal Government? CCL’s emerging research and latest interventions, collectively labeled, Transforming Your Organization(TYO), focus on cultural change concurrent with leadership development initiatives. Traditional hierarchical organizations (such as the Federal bureaucracy) are dependent cultures, characterized as dependent upon formal leaders to set direction, establish alignment, and maintain commitment (DAC) and are heavily stove-piped.
You can compare a dependent organization to a spider.By contrast, we have found that an interdependent, collaborative leadership culture is much more effective than a traditional dependent leadership culture. An interdependent leadership culture is characterized by extensive collaboration across boundaries, candor, more than one right answer, and synergies across the enterprise. Producing DAC is a collective activity requiring mutual inquiry and learning. This is more akin to the starfish or, better yet, the hybrid organization.
Consider the Federal Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. It was definitely spider-like with many uncoordinated limbs. Interagency collaboration was sorely lacking, as noted in The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned. The report cites stove-piped decision-making and a glaring lack of coordinated action across agencies. This lack of interdependence among the various departments and agencies responding to the crisis contributed to human suffering.
To correct the conditions which led to this state, the report recommends that, “our professional education and development programs must break down interagency barriers to build a unified team across the Federal government.” It also urges “the Federal government must make familiarity with other departments and agencies a requirement for career advancement,” (p. 73). The steps this report recommends are the foundations of establishing an interdependent leadership culture, the hybrid organization of The Starfish and the Spider. This sort of interdependence is currently only found within the Department of Defense and then only because it was mandated by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.
The federal government has long recognized the need for this sort of collaboration across agencies but has yet to act. What sort of professional education and development will accomplish these goals? We believe that our Federal Government can become a much more effective and efficient servant of the people if it establishes an interdependent leadership culture which leads to interagency collaboration. CCL has the ability to aid the Government in this transformation of its leadership culture with our TYO program and other emerging work. Our vision for the Federal Government is to help it develop an interdependent culture both within, and across, departments and agencies. This is something CCL is uniquely prepared to do. Creating this interdependent leadership culture will move us closer to a Federal Government which is both effective and efficient and fulfills its responsibilities to its citizenry.
The Center refuses to define leadership - that is as it should be. But it will define creative leadership as enabling people to move beyond obstacles to accomplish more than they thought was possible.
Creativity defined this program, and the Afghans, Americans and interpreters were certainly creative during it.
As the Afghan officers arrived for the program, many were what I pictured – hardened warriors, surviving not only years of war, but also seven testy years of uncertain peace. These men were the ones who were left, after thirty years of fighting an external enemy, then internal strife, then oppression, and now insurgency – these men had met and mastered the challenge of being true warriors. But could they lead an Army?
The classroom was within the historical Bala Hissar fortress. Those familiar with Afghan history will recognize the role the fortress played in every major event in Afghan history since the 12th Century. It was known as a place of torture, of great pain, and of transition. It was where the Afghans first defeated foreign forces, and it is where they assassinated elected presidents following coups. The irony did not escape me that we were using this same ground in an effort to move the country forward, using the positive nature of democratizing leadership to help prevent the Bala Hissar from being used the same way again.
Believing that to be success, this program had to run with the quality of CCL program on any campus. We began with the fundamental idea that CCL could not teach them anything about leadership – but it could provide an environment within which they could learn to be better leaders. I told them that I was in Kabul to learn from them – that people who teach do so because they are so excited about learning.
Then I tested them.
The national hero of Afghanistan is Ahmad Shah Massoud – he was the leader of the Northern
Alliance until his death the day before 9/11. He is revered in Afghanistan with the reverence reserved in America for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
I wanted to get them thinking out of the box quickly, so I asked them a simple question – “What made General Massoud a good leader?”
When I saw their eagerness to write, their earnestness in their answers, and their shock that this was going to be about Afghans and Afghanistan, I realized that CCL had not only done the right thing, but we were about to do something very real and very permanent.
For the next three days, the Afghan Officers and their mentors endured the same challenges, revelations, bonding and cohesion that are the hallmark of a CCL program. At first skeptical, they drew their leadership windows, describing what made them good leaders and what they wanted to learn about leadership. They chose images from Visual Explorer that defined leadership ‘in their hearts and in their heads.’ They survived the Blizzard exercise and created consensus through teams – something many believe is close to impossible. And they mastered the helium stick activity, working together as teams to communicate and break down barriers.
At the end, one of our students, the nephew of General Massoud, commented to our American Sponsor, with his hand over his heart ( a gesture of great sincerity in Afghanistan), “..thank you for brining this to Afghanistan – we needed this training…All Afghanistan needs this training...thank you…”
Then I realized that in spite of the danger, the location and the population, we were not doing anything different from what CCL does every day – act on its beliefs, its principles and its mission:
-
All people are leaders and simply need to find the best way to lead.
-
Anyone can learn to be a leader if they want to stretch and try new approaches.
-
When provided support plus a safe and secure environment, people, regardless of background, will experiment with new ideas and create new opportunities.
In addition, I realized why CCL exists – "to advance the understanding, practice and development of leadership for the benefit of society worldwide."
Moreover, I felt lucky to have had the chance to show this ideal to a small group of Afghans and Americans, locked in a struggle with an enemy that abhors the essence of that mission.
 CCL-Kabul began at the CCL campus in Greensboro, North Carolina. Working with a huge team of designers and researchers, we considered the challenges surrounding how someone might learn leadership in Afghanistan.
We would have to deliver in Dari. We would be working with a population that although very intelligent, and may not have a had a great deal of formal education. Every one we would be working with had served in war, with the Northern Alliance, the Mujahadeen, or even the Soviets. Some of these men had actually fought against each other, on opposite sides, at different times.
They were already good leaders – what can we do to help them become better, think differently about themselves, and their organization? How can we possibly help them think through the obstacles and focus on a vision for themselves and their country?
We decided to build on a program called Leadership Essentials, combined with the successful Leadership Beyond Boundaries design used so effectively by CCL in developing countries in Africa, as well as India. This provided a history of success when working with this type of population.
But, as everyone who has been there will tell you, Afghanistan is different. We would need to take this proven design and integrate an Afghan quality to it – one that builds from Afghan society’s foundation of family, tribe, ethnicity, and pride. And, of course, we want to integrate our training into the training already being conducted by the Training Command in Afghanistan. They work daily with the Afghan Army to produce a national army for the country – one that can serve as the unifying element, a role model of tolerant diversity.
Big goals, yes – scary goals actually. But if you don’t start working towards your goals today, when will you begin? As one old Afghan hand put it, ‘you have to start somewhere…’
So we began putting together CCL-Kabul. Just like any other CCL program, the participants would sit in groups, not Soviet-style in classrooms. Each table would have a mentor, and thanks to our friends in Kabul, each table would have an interpreter. We would treat them just like every other valued participant, with the exception that we would not do psychometric assessments like MBTI.
Instead, their discussions and use of questioning and a tool called Visual Explorer would provide the necessary level of self-disclosure needed to allow individual understanding and reflection as the launching point for leadership awareness and action.
In Kabul, support for the program had reached a tipping point. At first, support was hard to gain in spite of the desire for change. When the program design arrived, along with program slides, the client had a change of heart. They began discussing this across the command – building support with the Afghan Army for participating in the program.
Knowing we had the support of the leadership in both coalition and Afghan commands, we mailed the boxes of program materials, and I jumped on a series of planes that would take me to Kabul.
Stay tuned for Part III...
Teaching leadership in Kabul is one of those things you just never see yourself doing. Sure, I had spent a year there before, but that was part of the US effort to develop the Afghan Army. But why return to Afghanistan, literally risking life and limb, to teach leadership?
And why try to teach leadership when the predominant opinion remains that current leaders can’t be taught anything, much less leadership. Hide bound by centuries of culture, years of war, internecine tribalism and ethnic rivalries, why should anyone want to present the opportunity for a different style of leadership.
Add to this the physical risk –
Kabul, although not openly contested, is a key prize for all the forces. There is the constant threat of violence, car bombs, hijacking, kidnapping, etc..
And we were going to go teach… leadership?
What a terrific idea! When contacted by my good friend and informed of this opportunity, he stated it in way difficult to turn down. He stated the Afghan Army needed a creative leadership approach because the current mentoring relationship had taught them just about all they could about management.
The section of the Afghan Army he was mentoring was developing OK, but it seemed to level out – they were progressing, but only so. Somehow, they needed to move beyond their current state, beyond the bureaucracy and Soviet model to something with momentum.
So he called CCL. He needed a class that would teach the difference between leadership and management, good teamwork, and decision-making. He wanted his Afghan counterparts to see a different mode of leadership and begin cracking the former leaderships styles left by Soviet masters, cultural bonds and personal egos. He thought the Center might just be the place that could make that happen.
Therefore, we talked on the phone; we did a Leadership Discovery process via email and I began to get a feel for this progressive group of officers he was assisting in
Afghanistan. They were smart, committed, and ready to move beyond their managerial restrictions into the boundless opportunities afforded by thinking and leading creatively (those are my words, not mine – he is much more analytic).
The mission of the Center began to come into play. And in the midst of remarkable challenges facing the Center, from economic crises to the normal daily grind of running a non-profit, the Center was unfailing in their support -- even though the revenue of this program not very high.
I realized upon receiving the Center’s OK to go ahead, that in an age where companies, driven by the dollar that had lost their direction were failing, CCL was going to do well – very well. The Center’s dedication to supporting this initiative reflected a dedication to mission that failed companies seemed to lose. The CCL mission – the focus on development of leadership – but most important – for the benefit of society worldwide…the dedication to this mission, was an ideal that motivated me to endure the flights, the challenge of design, the challenge of teaching in Dari, and the inherent risk and danger involved with the program.
So, the entire CCL team began working together to build a design and I talked with travel to start booking the flights.
Stay tuned for Part II – Creating CCL-Kabul.
 The Government is in transition. New managers are arriving in the Federal City daily, and in many cases, there is little or no transition between the old and new administrations. The New Leaders at every level in government, whether they are Presidential Appointees or Civil Servants, need to decide whether they will master the transition or be its victims.
This transition means navigating the whitewater between what is known and comfortable and ineffective, and moving through the rocks of uncertainty towards a risk-filled future that may promise high political returns through creating more effective government. Like paddlers charging towards a difficult rapid, these new leaders, whether they are Appointees or Career Civil Servants, need to decide whether they will master the transition, or be overturned in the maelstrom.
How does the New Government Leader manage this whitewater? They may want to heed the advice of CCL authors Kerry Bunker and Michael Wakefield. Masters of paddling through organizational transitions, they offer techniques to use to lead effectively when change is the norm. Kerry and Michael offer five distinct communications fundamentals to use when you are stuck in your administrative kayak and have to move through the whitewater of change:
First, Communicate relentlessly – even if you don’t have the answer – communicating transparently and sharing information opens avenue to new and creative solutions…particularly in government, and yes, even with the other branches and agencies.
Listen. As a distinguished trainer once told me, “Did you ever realize that ‘listen’ and ‘silent’ have the same letters?" If you have problems staying silent (as many of us do), then listen by asking questions and paraphrasing with your conversant. Most importantly, use the conversation to create a deeper understanding of the situation or challenge. If you listen to the sound of the river, you will hear the rapids as they approach and you can chart your way through them.
Don’t blame the old administration. This is an easy trap that ensnares poor leaders. Look to where you want to go and move people through to your objective. Constantly talking about the past keeps you there. One old river rat once said – “..if you don’t keep your eyes downstream, you will keep hitting the same rocks..”
Trust is the flip side of the ‘hope’ coin. We hope because we trust our vision and how we might get there. Be authentic and tell people the truth – even when you think they cannot handle it. History reflects that people are more resilient than we give them credit for, and are willing to rise to difficult challenges when presented truthfully. Trust your boat, your paddle and your instincts.
Demonstrate calm, resilient, and high quality behavior. If you want to tell others the truth, be prepared to accept it yourself. As Kerry Bunker says, “…set the tone and model the behavior that makes the truth-telling OK.” Or, get as mad as you want at the river – it still keeps moving…are you moving with it?
The government will continue to change – with great rapidity. How will you steer a steady course through this whitewater? You may not be able to change the rapids, but you can certainly learn to paddle with precision, getting your boat through the rocks unscathed to the quiet and pleasant waters beyond.
 100,000 new government workers. That is one estimate mentioned in a recent Washington Post article. Over 100 Grand New Members of the government apparatus. Finding the right people to fill this number during a time of economic downturn will not be hard – making them effective members of the government administration will be.
President Obama stated during his campaign that "People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.’ No one knows the exact figure, but in order to 'do better’ according this administration, the government will have to expand.
What will be the effect? Government is different from Private industry.In my time as faculty for the Government Sector at the Center, I have re-discovered the fundamental differences between government and non-government entities. In short, government service is focused upon the effective and equitable distribution of the people’s resources for the good of the nation. The themes of service, effectiveness and equitymake government organizations different from commercial organizations whose raison d’etre is to increase the bottom line for shareholders.
The Center has many partners in government, and all agree that service is the coin of the realm in government employ. Federal and state employees speak of service in almost mystical tomes – they serve the taxpayer and take this mission almost as a holy edict, insuring that they spend the taxpayers’ resources with great care and fidelity. This idea of service counters the idea of financial gain, a key theme of private enterprise. An oft-used adage of public service is that ‘I don’t do this for the money.’
Effectiveness is the logical conclusion of the idea of service. Effectiveness, making certain the resources provided are used appropriately and for the correct purpose, is in government, more important than efficiency. Government employees want to make sure the job is done for the right reason. This is sometimes won at the loss of efficiency.
Equitable treatment counters the idea of exclusionary preference. In the private sector, exclusionary preference creates scarcity, which allows for the setting of prices. In government, civil servants are caught in the middle between the executive branch, which dictates policy, and the Legislature, which approves and authorizes the use of funds. Democratic theory states this offset of responsibilities insures equitable treatment for all people within the nation – there should be, in a perfect world, no exclusion.
Service, effectiveness, and equity are all profound differences within government and ideas held by the public service. I am wondering if we have the right structure to bring on 100,000 more people and instill them with these three key ideas. Without internalizing these ideas, without the training needed, without vision, and without dedication, the new employees will reinforce George Patton’s idea of government service: "A Civil Servant is like a broken cannon, it won’t work and you can’t fire it.’
As citizens, we must ask ourselves what kind of civil servants will we demand and pay for? What kind of civil servant will pick up the President’s mantra and strive towards the change in priorities that will make a better life for others? How might we reinforce a sense of national service, program effectiveness, and equitable application? These are important for without internalizing these key themes, the workers simply serve themselves.
There is change occurring in Washington. In his speech to Congress last week, the President set forth a very assertive agenda and will soon be looking for 100,000 to make it happen. Government agencies across the spectrum will have many volunteers to join the government, all with their own ideas -- some based on ideology, others on economy. Regardless of their reason for joining, those within the senior levels of government must find a way to instill a sense of service, a dedication to effectiveness and an understanding of equity.
There are many detractors who believe this cannot be done, but as Thoreau stated, "To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."
Let’s discuss how we can set the foundation for 100,000 new government workers taking one step towards obtaining that better government.
|
