What 'success' looks like - Exploring the inner world of leaders in transition

One of my all-time favorite books is ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ by Robert M. Pirsig. This book begins with the lines “And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good, Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?". When it comes to the domain of Leadership and Organization Development, it is very important to have a clear understanding of ‘what good looks like’, because we are often dealing with the inner world of individuals and groups that tend to be quite ‘subjective’. This is especially true when it comes to leadership transitions.  

Leadership transitions, those involving new leaders moving into the organization in particular, are important and risky at the same time, from both the individual leaders’ and the organization’s points of view.

From the organization's point of view, leadership transitions are high-stake situations as the level of effectiveness of the new leader will have a significant impact on the team, the organization, and the other stakeholders. This becomes even more important when the new leader has been hired with the mandate to drive organizational transformation.

Similarly, from the individual leader's point of view, moving to a new organization might imply high risks, as a leader's effectiveness is often quite context-specific and as the leader is making the transition decision based on limited information. Also, how the leaders approach the job change process and how they look at the  degree of ‘success’ in their job changes can vary from leader to leader. 

I have had the opportunity to observe many such leadership transitions and their impact closely. Please see ‘When the new doesn’t outperform the old’ for some ‘unorthodox’ perspectives on this fascinating domain that also include suggestions for the leaders in transition like

• considering a bit of 'exorcism’,
• validating 'what good looks like.
• being politically aware without 'playing politics', and 
• ‘alignment, alignment, alignment’.

Now, let us come back to the inner world of leaders in transition - their ‘lived experience’ of job transitions and their tacit definitions of success (i.e., the factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes made by leaders, as perceived by the leaders themselves). In a way, success in transitions is a construct that exists in the minds of the individual leaders in transition, and it has no clear boundaries.

It is possible that the above factors that affect the perceived degree of success are different for internal job changes and external job changes. Similarly, these factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes might vary based on the nature of job change (e.g., that for lateral moves as compared to moves involving a level change, moves within the job function as compared to cross-functional moves, moves involving relocation as compared that moves that don’t involve relocation etc.).  

It is also possible that these tacit definitions of success change as the leaders spend more time in their jobs. For example, it is possible that when accepting a new job, the tacit definition of success is more in terms of 'objective' factors (e.g., salary and job description). Then transition-related factors (e.g., how smooth was the transition process), fit related factors (e.g., person-organization/person-team fit, person-job fit, and the fit between assumptions made by the leader while making the job change decision and the experienced reality), and progression related factors (e.g., capability and career development) get added on.

Again, there could be variations in the factors that affect the perceived degree of success in job changes based on personality related factors. gender, age, job function, job level, type of organization, national culture etc.

I guess, what makes this domain fascinating to explore is the interplay of individual and context related factors apart from the very fact that we are we are exploring the inner world of leaders in transition. The inner worlds tend to follow ‘their own rules’ and sometimes they might even refuse to follow any rules!

Having said this, I must also add that there is a strong 'business case' for exploring the inner worlds of leaders in transition and their tacit definitions of success.

Such an exploration can help the leaders to be more intentional about job changes and to make better-informed decisions and actions that can enhance their perceived level of success in job changes. Also, it can help the organizations to make better selection decisions by probing the tacit definitions of success the candidates for leadership positions have and comparing them with what the organization offers. Again, it can inform interventions like executive coaching, leadership induction, new leader assimilation, and leadership development. 

Any comments/ideas?

When the new doesn't outperform the old...

"Our approach has been to bring in new leaders who can take the company to the next level of excellence", said the Business Leader. "Are we sure that those new leaders have performed better than the existing leaders?", asked the Organization Development (OD) Manager*.

Infusing new talent across levels, especially at leadership levels, has been a favorite response of many organizations, when faced with performance or organization effectiveness challenges. There is definitely some merit to this. If the existing leaders have failed to meet the organization goals, they might be part of the problem. Sometimes, the existing leaders don't have the requisite skills or experience to drive business transformation, especially when the business is moving into new domains.

It is also true that a business leader can't micro-manage a large organization and hence has to depend on the leaders down the line. Again, there is no point in hiring highly capable leaders and giving them micro-instructions on what exactly they should do. However, as we have seen in 'Paradox of hiring good people and letting them decide', this strategy is not as simple to implement as it appears to be!

Yes, it is highly tempting to just 'throw new people at problems or opportunities'. Replacing existing leaders with new leaders sends strong messages both inside and outside the organization. It can create the perception that the organization is taking 'decisive action' and that the future is likely to be much better than the present.

So what is the problem with this approach? To begin with, it often happens that problems at the organization strategy, structure or policies level get misdiagnosed as individual capability issues of leaders down the line. If that is the case, unless the new leaders have the empowerment to change/influence those upstream issues (at organization strategy/structure/policy levels), they have no chance of being successful. If the failure of new leaders also gets (conveniently)  diagnosed as 'hiring mistake', this cycle of 'hiring - firing - hiring' new leaders would go on! Of course, if the new leaders also follow the same philosophy and bring in new people to their teams, this can snowball into large number of people changes with the associated disruption/ripple effects (and an absolute bonanza for recruitment consultants). All this can create an illusion of progress.

The organizations that have a propensity to make leadership changes at the slightest provocation might also be prone to a 'swim-or-sink' attitude ('now that you have been hired as a leader, it is up to you to make it work') once the new leaders join the organization -with not enough emphasis given to new leader assimilation and to putting in place the supporting structures for new leaders (e.g. time investment by senior leaders and mentors). This can get further complicated if the new leader doesn't get the required resources he/she needs. Of course, leaders are expected to 'do more with less'. But 'creating something out of nothing' is more like magic and not management. Similarly, the degree of stretch in the role might not be realistic. It is important to differentiate between 'stretch roles and designed to fail roles'! 

Now, it would be unfair to say that all the failures in leadership transitions are the fault of the organizations. There are many things the newly hired leaders can do to make an effective transition.  Let's look at just four of them and also explore what can be done jointly by the newly hired leader and the organization to maximize the possibility of  a successful transition.

Validate 'what good looks like': Individual leaders have personalities, values and work preferences. Organizations have their own preferred ways of doing things, behavioral norms and underlying assumptions ('culture'). A large degree of alignment between the leader's and the organization's underlying definitions of 'what good looks like' would make life easier for both the parties and enhance the chances of a successful leadership transition (See 'On what good looks like' for more details). There are two specific actions that can help here. The first is ensuring a more in-depth and open discussion on the 'culture-fit' kind of dimensions during the hiring process. The second is (when a hiring decision has been made based on a large degree of fit; after all there no 'perfect-fit') providing detailed feedback and coaching to the newly hired leader on those aspects/behaviors where there is insufficient fit. Not leveraging the wealth of data  generated during the selection process  for feedback and development/coaching is a costly miss that many organizations make.

Consider a bit of 'exorcism' :When a leader works in an organization for a while, patterns of interaction develop around that leader. When that leader leaves the organization, a vacuum gets created and the patterns that were centered around that leader (or the 'ghost of that leader'; as Robert Pirsig says, ghosts are essentially such patterns) looks for someone to attach itself to and the new leader becomes the prime target. So if the new leader is not careful, he/she gets sucked into those patterns and becomes part of the previous way of functioning before he/she realizes it. Now, especially if the leader has been hired with a mandate to drive change, this can seriously impair his/her ability to drive that change. Of course, all old patterns are not problematic and some of them might be even helpful. Continuing those helpful patterns can help the leader to provide the team some sense of continuity (and the assurance that the new leader doesn't disrespect the past), which is a big plus from the change management perspective. So, all that is required is to recognize the patterns and discontinue ('exorcise the ghost of') the dysfunctional patterns.

Being politically aware without 'playing politics' : Driving change (which is often the reason why new leaders are brought in) is essentially a 'political' activity as it alters the current distribution of power. Even the very act of introducing a new leader into an organization, can change the power balance! Many leadership transitions fail because the new leaders could not recognize or manage the power dynamics. So, as we have seen in 'A political paradox of OD' , the requirement is to be sensitive to the political dynamics of the organization and to manage it without  'playing politics'. Yes, this is a tightrope walk (and sounds a bit mystical like 'doing without doing') that requires a very high level of self-awareness and critical self-monitoring. In a way, this is part of being 'enlightened' . Remember,  enlightenment is about 'seeing things as they really are' (in the organization). Even for leaders who have been hired with a transformation mandate, 'it makes sense to understand something before trying to change it'! 

Alignment, alignment, alignment : Soon after I joined one of my previous organizations (which had gone through multiple organization transformations) I asked a senior colleague what are the top three things that can make someone successful in that organization. His response was "alignment, alignment, alignment". I have seen this factor being relevant in other organizations also - especially for newly hired leaders. Having alignment with one's boss can be the starting point. My favorite question to ensure alignment on this is : "What would make you recommend the highest performance rating for me?". Enabling alignment with one's team through jointly developing the vision and way forward for the team is very powerful. Consulting widely with key stakeholders before one finalizes the vision and way forward is also very helpful (to deepen one's understanding of the organization, to clarify mutual expectations, to secure buy-in and to start building one's network). For a new leader it is very easy to make wrong (inappropriate)  assumptions based on his/her experience in other organizations. So, these alignment conversations are most helpful. The principle of  'survival of the fittest' (that governs  biological evolution) is applicable to the  'survival of newly hired leaders' also and we must remember that 'fittest' is defined in terms of 'being the best-adapted to the local environment'. Alignment is indeed a very powerful 'fitness' (fitness to the new organization) increasing activity!

So, where does this leave us? Bringing in new leaders is not some sort of a panacea for all the organizations' ills. Before bringing in new leaders, organizations should do some soul-searching on what exactly are the problems they are trying to solve and whether bringing in leaders from outside is the best option. The new leaders should bring in some capabilities or experiences that the organization doesn't have internally (and can't develop in the existing leaders within a reasonable time frame). 'Not being burdened by the past' shouldn't be the primary value that a new leader brings in. Else, the new leader would become part of the 'old' in a very short time (and becomes a candidate for replacing). Organizations should invest more in making the new leader successful. Apart from putting specific programs in place (like new leader integration, mentoring, coaching by senior leaders etc.), organizations should emphasize that the senior leaders who have hired the new leaders are accountable for making the new leaders successful.

Of course, the above discussion is applicable to all new hires and not just to new hires at senior leadership levels. It is just that possible negative impact of a failed or 'troubled' leadership transition (on the team and on the organization)  is much higher.  As we have seen in 'Polarities of leadership' , leadership involves finding the right equilibrium between polarities, that too along multiple dimensions. Newly hired leaders need more help to find the appropriate equilibrium for the new organization context. The encouraging thing is that the upside of a successful leadership transition is also very high and hence worth the additional investment!

Any thoughts/ideas?

*Note: Please see 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for another interaction between the Business Leader and the OD Manager. Kindly note that both the 'Business Leader' and the 'OD Manager'  are 'composite characters' and hence they are not 'constrained by' organization boundaries!

OD Managers and the unconscious of the organization!

"I represent the unconscious of this organization!", said the Organization Development (OD) Manager. "That is why we have so many nightmares!!", retorted the business leader. 
 

In this blog, we have been exploring the many hats worn by the OD Managers (see Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters, The OD Quest series and Architects of Meaning for some of the examples).

Coming back to the conversation that we started this post with, it can definitely be said that tapping into the unconscious of the organization and bringing more of that into conscious awareness is part of the OD role. As Carl Jung said, “one does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making darkness conscious”. One of the key functions of OD is to facilitate greater awareness, integration and authenticity.

Before we go deep into our discussion, let's look at a fundamental question. Does it make sense to talk about the unconscious of the organization? If we observe behavior of organizations (internal functioning and external response) and people in organizations (as individuals and as groups), there is a lot that can't be explained by purely rational models of organization behavior(that assume that that a person works to earn money and to satisfy the need for material possessions). Organization behavior appears to be mysterious, unpredictable or even irrational. It appears that our thoughts and actions are influenced also by energies that are outside our conscious awareness. Hence, ‘unconscious of the organization’ is a 'useful model' for understanding and influencing the behavior patterns in organizations ('All models are wrong; some are useful!').

In a way, the employees don't leave their ‘inner drama’ at the door when they come to work. Also groups are held together not only by formal structures but also by stories/fiction, ’group think’ or even by 'convenient collective delusions' . Some of this fiction is unconscious. Organizations behave as if they have a ‘personality’ - sustained patterns of behavior internally and externally - often referred to as the organization culture. If we look at the most popular model of organization culture (Edgar Schein's model), the deepest level of culture is that of the ‘basic underlying assumptions’ that are deeply embedded in the organizational psyche and are experienced as self-evident and unconscious behavior (and are hard to recognize from within the organization). 

Now, let's look at this question from the point of OD Managers. When they come across this kind of strange behavior  patterns in organizations the OD/HR Managers are aware that something peculiar is happening  but can’t understand what exactly is happening and why. This can cause them to feel ineffective, uninformed, and helpless in many dynamic organizational situations such as meetings, team building, and leadership interactions. That is why 'psychodynamics' of the organization (that is essentially based on the unconscious, at individual and collective levels) become useful for OD Managers for understanding, predicting and influencing organization behavior. To put it in another way, since OD is essentially about facilitating change, OD interventions often have to tap into this unconscious level of organization culture. 

The unconscious in the organization manifests in terms of ‘apparently irrational behavior’, myths, stories, metaphors, images, symbols, artifacts etc. All these can be useful starting points for exploring the unconscious of the organization. For example, understanding unconscious patterns can happen through exploration of the organization’s (defining) myth. Myths are based on the inter-subjective reality in the organization and they can be 'more powerful than history and can resist or distort facts with great tenacity'. 

Repression of uncomfortable facts, thoughts, ideas and experiences causes organization members to resist change and become trapped in dysfunctional behavior patterns. OD Manager can enable the key relationships between organization members to be more effective by revealing the hidden, unconscious and inter subjective dimensions of organization life. The collective unconscious of the organization can be influenced by the use of 'generative metaphors' (that help to alter the socially constructed organization reality) and by re-purposing the prominent stories in the organization (retelling the stories to convey a different 'moral of the story' that is aligned to the new change agenda). Hence, tapping into the collective unconscious of the organization is very useful not only for accurate diagnosis of the problems in the organization but also for facilitating organization change and renewal.

In business organizations, OD often degenerates into a series of initiatives. But at the most fundamental level, OD is about facilitating better conversations that can help the organization to better understand what really is happening and to find better solutions. Hence, giving voice to the unspoken and even the unspeakable is very much part of the OD role! Apart from enabling better solutions, it would also lead to better buy-in and ownership and avoid passive resistance. It can also be said that OD Managers are in a better position (as compared to HR Business Partners who are embedded in the different business units) to do this task.

Yes, this process of making the unconscious conscious can bring out some of the ‘uncomfortable truths’ and that in turn can create quite a few ‘headaches’ (if not nightmares) for the business leaders. This can also destroy some of the convenient collective delusions in the organization. The discomfort created by this process is most problematic during the initial period, before the fruits of the integration of the unconscious with the conscious of the organization like higher levels of integrity in the organization (in terms of integration of thought, words and deeds) and  increased creativity and organization effectiveness become apparent.That is why the OD Managers need some sort of ‘diplomatic immunity’ similar to that was enjoyed by the Court Jesters. This diplomatic immunity and some sort of ‘licensed stupidity’ (the license to ask child-like or even naïve questions) is also important for the OD Managers to act as coaches for senior leaders.

So where does this leave us? There are recurring patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving that are evident in the behavior of individuals, groups and organizations and sometimes they don't make sense- especially to an outsider. Tapping into the individual and collective unconscious in organizations can be highly beneficial both for addressing dysfunctions and for enhancing creativity and authenticity in organizations. In the elegant words of Carl Jung, 'until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate'!

The OD managers (especially those who have expertise in the psychodynamics of organizations) can add a lot of value in this domain. Yes, the OD managers should develop a high degree of self-awareness, apart from understanding the psychodynamics of organizations, to meaningfully intervene. They should always keep in mind that OD is an invitation (and not compulsion) for change and that it is the responsibility of the OD Manager to help the client see the potential value in the exploration. Yes, the OD Managers also need some sort of 'diplomatic immunity' or 'licensed stupidity' to make all this work!

Any comments/ideas?

Of values and competencies

“If we don't clearly differentiate between values and competencies, we are devaluing the values!”, said the Organization Development Manager to the HR Business Partner. They were discussing the plight of the new hires in the organization who were confused by similar-looking names that they come across in the list of organization values and in the competency framework of the organization. Since this is quite a familiar situation across organizations, let’s try to explore the domains of values and competencies in a bit more detail in this post.

To begin with, let’s understand these two concepts more deeply. Competencies are a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes that lead to success/superior performance (e.g. in a job, in a function, in an organization etc.) Values are the things that the organization ‘values’ (i.e. consider to be important) and hence values are deeply-held beliefs about what is most important.

Most of the confusion comes because we often don’t take the organization values seriously. In many organizations, they are an ornamental piece (i.e. they don’t really influence decision-making) and they harmlessly exist in the posters on the walls of the organization and in the slides of PowerPoint Presentations(typically in the elite company of the vision and mission statements of the organization).

To me, something should be called a value only if it is so important (so valuable and so core to the organization) that it would be exhibited even if it leads to competitive disadvantage or even a loss for the organization.  Since competencies (by definition) are linked to success, this clearly brings out the difference between competencies and values.In a way, competencies are about how to win and values are about how to live, and winning has to be done within the overall context of living!

The difference between values and competencies are evident in the typical manner in which they are arrived at. Competency frameworks are ‘designed’ where as values are ‘discovered’ or ‘crystallized’. In a way, competencies are more a matter of the mind where values are essentially a matter of the heart!

Typically, values are identified at the organization level (i.e. there is only one set of values for the organization) where as competencies can be defined at job, function and organization level (based on what leads to success at each of the levels). Competencies are developed whereas values are aligned! Addressing competency gaps in the employees is much easier as compared to addressing lack of alignment between the values of the employees and the values of the organization.

The competency frameworks are often revised much more frequently (based on changes in business environment and strategy) as compared to the values for the organization. It is interesting to note that the organization values are often a reflection of individual values the founding members of the organization. While the values of the organization can be shaped to some extent by the members of the organization and by significant events that shape the organization over a period of time, values remain relatively more stable as compared to competencies. The relative stability of values is also because the fit between the individual values and the organization values (the so called ‘culture-fit’) is often a criteria in the selection process! In a way it make sense, as inculcating values is a long process!

It is interesting to note that while the same thing can be a competency or a value, the implications are vastly different. For example, if ‘customer orientation’ is a competency, we will probably understand customer needs deeply and meet the needs better that what our competitors do so that the customer is willing to pay us more. But if ‘customer orientation’ is a value, we would meet a commitment made to the customer even if it leads to a loss for the company (even when there are ways to wriggle out of the commitment). So while values might look nice and innocuous, they definitely need skin in the game! Competencies should be exhibited in the context (spirit and boundary conditions) provided by the values! If this condition is met and the difference between values and competencies are clearly understood, then the same thing (e.g. customer orientation) can be both a value and a competency in an organization and it might even be beneficial as it might lead to greater focus on capability building (as competencies are often linked to HR processes like assessments and learning & development).  

Yes, deeply-held values can guide behavior when no one is looking (and even shape how we experience and interpret the world) and values can be a great culture-building tool (In a way, culture is encoded in the DNA of values!). But if there is a disconnect between the espoused values and the enacted values, it would lead to confusion and loss of trust that can be very damaging to the organization culture. Technically speaking, it can be argued that values are 'value-neutral' (in the sense that what defines them is their supreme importance to the group and not their correctness according to some external ethical standards). But we must remember that each group is part of a larger society and there are some basic standards of ethics that are largely accepted by most of the current human populations!

So,  what does all this mean? I am all for leveraging the power of values so long as the values are really valued. That is, we should include something as a value if and only if it is so important to us that if required we would be prepared to take a a hit to the business for it. This conflict is easier to manage if the values are in sync with the core purpose of the organization. Actually, some companies include values explicitly in the purpose/mission statement (as opposed to keeping it separate). Of course, this would work only in those organizations where the purpose/mission of the organization is taken seriously!

Identifying the values is only the first step. After that entire chain of activities including clearly describing the values and articulating why values are so important, creating and communicating representations/examples of how each of the values play out in the various parts of the business, ensuring that the leaders visibly demonstrate the values/are role models in living the values, conducting values workshops across the organization to enable the employees to understand what exactly each of the values mean in the context of their jobs so that they can live the values more completely in their jobs, collecting and celebrating/recognizing outstanding demonstrations of the values across the organization, measuring the actual experience (of lack of it) for the values across the organization and taking action to reinforce the values where needed etc. begins! Of course, we must validate that the policies and processes in the organization are in alignment with the organization values.

How strongly a value is held decides the extent to which it influences decision-making. Also, if there are multiple values, how strongly each one is held becomes the deciding factor when there is a situation where the values are in conflict (i.e. where we have to prioritize one value over the other). Since values usually ‘goody goody things’, often we don't even consciously think about the relative importance of the values to us, unless we are forced to choose between values (and hence the importance of doing an exercise like 'value auction' that forces us to prioritize the values  as part of value clarification/crystallization sessions). It is also highly useful to clearly articulate (e.g. during the values workshops mentioned above) how to deal with situations where there is a possible conflict between two of the company values!

 

Hence, while values are very powerful and useful they also involve hard decisions and hard work! So, 'handle with care'!!

Any comments?