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?

Mission without Vision?!

Recently, I tried to do some sort of ‘life planning’. Conditioned by the two decades spent in the management domain, my first impulse was to try to write out mission and vision statements for myself.

When I tried to do this, something interesting happened. I was able to write the mission statement very easily. But, somehow I couldn't write the vision statement! 

This surprised me quite a bit. Usually, mission (purpose) and vision (snapshot of the preferred future) go together. Then why am I able to write the mission statement so easily but not the corresponding vision statement? 

What deepened the mystery was that when I had attempted to write my mission and vision statements a decade ago (as part of a training program that I was attending) I didn't face any such difficulty in writing a vision statement.This left my wondering what happened during  the intervening decade that made writing the mission statement much easier and writing the vision statement much harder.

May be, what is happening is that I am becoming increasingly aware of the unpredictable nature of life. I have realized that fixed definitions of success can become more of constraints than enablers - not only what you planned for doesn't come through but also you miss out on other (sometimes 'better') opportunities because you were not open to them.

So a mission (which is more like a compass) fits in much better with this dynamic scheme of things as compared to a vision (which is more like a static picture of the preferred future)! Of course, one can set goals so long as the goals don't make oneself not open to the emerging new/better possibilities that are in alignment with one's purpose(mission). As opposed to goals, visions tend to me more permanent (and with a longer time frame or without a specified time frame). So, the problem is only with putting a 'picture of success' on a pedestal and adding unnecessary rigidity to it by calling it a vision. 

Life experience often gives you clues on 'who you are'  by showing you 'who you are not'. Of course, life experience also gives you clues on 'what you are designed to do' and 'what is important to you'. This definitely helps in  sharpening one's understanding of his/her purpose (mission) and that is probably why I was able to write my mission statement much more easily this time (and felt it to be more accurate). 

On what ‘good’ looks like…

“I am leaving this organization because my manager and I have very different ideas on what ‘good’ looks like in my domain, and we have agreed to disagree. It was not a matter of lack of clarity on the performance objectives and targets. The issue was a fundamental disconnect on what those objectives and targets should be and how they should be achieved – on what ‘excellence’ means in my role and in my domain”, said the Function Leader during his exit interview.

In my career so far, I have had the good fortune of experiencing many organization contexts – either as an external consultant or as an employee. Based on these experiences, I have come to realize that organizations often have different definitions of the ‘picture of success at an individual level’ (i.e. what good individual performance looks like). While the tasks/deliverable will vary from one job to the other within the organization, there are common patterns that hold good across jobs in an organization on what good performance (or ‘excellence’ or ‘quality’) looks like. But, these patterns can vary a lot from one organization to the other. When people move from one organization to the other this can create ‘rude shocks’ – for both the employee and the organization – especially when an employee who has been successful in one  organization joins another organization that has a different definition of excellence('what good looks like').

Let us take a closer look at these underlying(tacit) definitions of quality (or excellence). While each organization has its own underlying definition (assumption), it can be useful to conceptualize these underlying assumptions as points in a continuum between two polar opposites : 'absence of variation' and 'presence of value'. 

At one end we have organizations where the underlying definition of quality is very much similar to the ‘six sigma definition’ – ‘absence of variation’. In these organizations, the performance of an employee considered to the excellent, if he/she thinks through the goals before agreeing to the same, creates a detailed plan to work towards the goals in a systematic manner, archives goals even if there were changes in the environment (through scenario planning, risk analysis & mitigation and sheer focus). These organizations also tend to value and invest in building capability/expertise – at both people and process level. Hence the premium is on good design, deep expertise, meticulous planning, reliability, consistency, coherence and congruence. In extreme cases this can lead to rigidity.  

At the other end of the continuum we have organizations where the definition is more like 'presence of value' or ‘fitness for purpose’ (with the ‘purpose’ changing quite often). Here the focus is on ‘trial and error’. Simply put, this means do whatever makes most sense in a particular situation. In these organizations, muddling through things is acceptable and even preferred (over thinking through things and seeking clarity before starting work). People who insist on planning and consistency are considered to be ‘risk-averse’ (or even to be 'lacking in courage'). Operating with contradictions (and lack of coherence & consistency) is considered to be ‘heroic’. A lot of emphasis is placed on pragmatism (as opposed to expertise) and on workarounds.  Hence the premium is on ‘flexibility’ and ‘crisis handling’. In extreme cases it can lead to an organization that jumps from one idea (goal or fad) to another on a frequent basis.

Of course, there are many other dimensions (for the variation in the underlying definitions on what good performance looks like) in addition to dimension represented by the continuum between the two end points mentioned above. There is nothing inherently 'good' or 'bad' about these underlying definitions - they are just different (equally valid) ways of looking at the world. The point is that these variations exist across organizations and it could have a significant bearing on performance, employee satisfaction, engagement and retention.

To some extent, these assumptions are related to the environment in which the organization is operating in. But it is often it is a matter of the preferred way of responding to the environment. These assumptions are also closely related to the culture of the organization- especially the deeper levels of culture – values and basic underlying assumptions. Theoretically speaking, the match between the employees’ and the organizations’ definitions of ‘what good performance looks like’, is represented by some dimensions of ‘person-organization’ fit. However, an intellectual discussion on the low scores on some dimensions of ‘person-organization’ fit might not fully bring out the reality (trauma!) of the ‘rude shocks’ for the employee and for the organization (mentioned earlier in our discussion).

This brings us to the question of adaptation. Employees can adjust. Organizations can change too – though usually it is a very slow process and require a ‘critical mass of new employees with different preferences’. The individual’s definition of ‘good’ can also change. However,  the individual’s definition of ‘good’ is shaped mainly by his/her personality and his/her ‘early career experiences’ (see 'Influence of early career experiences') and a change in the same requires lot of time and a critical mass of high impact (profound or traumatic) new (different) experiences. Hence, for the time being, let us focus on the issue of new employees attempting to align with the organization’s definition of ‘good performance’.

Yes, employees do realize that they are unlikely to find an organization that provides a 100% match to their preferences and that they need to adjust. But if an employee needs to constantly act outside his/her preferences it can lead to stress.  This can also lead to mediocrity as the individuals are not able to play to their strengths. Excellence and engagement at individual level requires the opportunity ‘to bring more of who you are into what you do’ (see 'Employee engagement and the story of the Sky Maiden'). It is critical for those employees for who looks at work as one of avenues for self-expression. Similarly, when organizations talk about connecting with employees at higher levels of the needs hierarchy, this becomes important for the organizations also.

Now let us come back to the exit case that we saw in the beginning of this post. Ideally, the employee and his manager should have been able to arrive at a higher ground that integrates their conflicting points of view (like the struggle between thesis and antithesis results in a higher more truthful synthesis of the two - in Hegelian Metaphysics).But this ideal state is often not possible within the constraints of the organization context and the individuals involved. Sometimes (as the existentialist philosopher Kierkegaard says), people will have to make ‘either/or’ decisions (and the seductive beauty of Hegelian ‘and/both’ turns out to be an illusion).

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?" In the context of our discussion (for a person who is trying to join a new organization or for an organization trying to hire someone), the answer should be a loud ‘YES’.  Yes, it is worthwhile to ask this explicitly, listen carefully, ‘read’ between the lines and to be very careful about what is left unsaid!!!