Of leadership development and articulating the unarticulated

It was Carl Jung who said, "Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate". Something similar holds true in the case of leaders and leadership development also. 

The tacit definitions of leadership in the minds of the leaders influence how they lead. This implies that one of the important ways to enhance the effectiveness of the leaders is to enable them to identify the tacit definition of leadership they have in their minds and the impact of that definition on their actions and effectiveness as a leader. This is an aspect that doesn't get adequate attention in leadership development initiatives and hence it significantly takes away from the potential impact of initiatives like leadership development programs and leadership coaching. 

It is also useful to help the leaders understand how the idea of leadership has evolved and the possibilities offered by the newer definitions of leadership. Over the last few decades, the definition of leadership has gravitated towards a 'meaning making oriented one', as the process whereby one motivates others to contribute to the achievement of collective goals by shaping beliefs, values, and understandings rather than by controlling the behaviors through rewards and punishment. 

Humans are meaning-seeking creatures and leaders are architects or even merchants of meaning. This also means that the leaders' ability to facilitate meaning-making for their followers is a pivotal contributor to leadership effectiveness. Hence, there is a need to help the leaders to 'articulate the unarticulated definitions of leadership' that they around in their heads and to update them if required.

This also has a direct impact on leadership development. It is a good idea to have a clear understanding of what exactly one is trying to develop through leadership development! If the leadership development is attempted without paying adequate attention to the underlying definition of leadership, it can easily miss the mark. Leadership development programs often focus on the shiny surface of leadership—the concepts, models and behaviors that look great on paper—but they rarely dig into the messy, sticky, psychological goo where those tacit definitions in the minds of the leaders live. As a result, we end up with leaders who 'talk the talk' about enabling meaningfulness but 'walk the walk' of someone who's just looking for the next opportunity to dangle a carrot or wield a stick. This will make 'meaning based leadership' some sort of a 'con game'! This can also push leadership development efforts further into the realm of 'corporate rain dances'.  

Let's take a closer look at these tacit definitions. Tacit definitions of leadership are the deeply ingrained beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions that individuals hold about what constitutes good leadership - 'on what good looks like'. These definitions are often shaped by personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, organization context and even collective delusions. They can significantly influence how leaders perceive their roles, interact with their teams, and make decisions. While tacit definitions of leadership can provide a valuable foundation for leaders, they can also act as blind spots, limiting their effectiveness in a changing world.  

However, surfacing, examining and modifying these tacit definitions can very difficult. This process involves reflecting on one's beliefs and assumptions, seeking feedback from others, and staying open to new ideas and perspectives. Leadership development programs can play a crucial role in helping the leaders to surface and examine their tacit definitions of leadership. 

So how exactly do we accomplish this? Leadership development needs to get more personal, delving into the shadowy recesses of leaders' minds. We need to coax out those ancient definitions, hold them up to the light, and ask, "Is this really the best we've got?" Facilitating deep self-reflection during leadership development programs and providing personalized support in terms of leadership coaching can be very helpful! Seeking feedback from the significant others at work (including the team members), who have a ringside seat to see the tacit definition of leadership playing out in terms of leadership behaviors, and, using that feedback as an input to coaching can also be very useful.

To be able to lead through meaning-making, leaders should be able to imbue goals with meanings. They should be able to provide the followers with a sense of coherence (feeling of comprehension or that actions/events fit into a pattern/make sense), purpose (feeling that the proposed actions are in line with the pursuit of larger goals that the employees consider to be valuable) and significance (the feeling that the employees and their action matter/make a difference). This requires leadership development programs to focus more on aspects like visionary leadership, leading through purpose, corporate storytelling, use of generative metaphors, social construction of reality, empathy, authentic leadership etc.  

In short, while the explicit definitions of leadership in the leadership research/leadership discourse have evolved into something that is meaning-oriented, many leaders are still unconsciously clinging to the 'carrots and sticks' of rewards and punishments to shape employee behavior at the workplace. It's time to bring those tacit definitions into the 21st century, dust them off, and maybe, replace them with something a little more enlightened. Yes, we also need to develop the enabling skills in the leaders to help them to reflect the new definitions of leadership in their behavior at the workplace. With enough work, we might create a workplace where leaders are as good at sculpting minds as they once were at doling out carrots and brandishing sticks.

Any comments?

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?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 8 - ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations!

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here we are exploring concepts that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management (See ‘The attrition principle’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’ and 'Herophobia' for the previous posts in this series).

Based on my experience as an employee and as a management consultant, I have noticed an interesting pattern. Some organizations are optimized for newly hired employees (‘Type N’ organizations) whereas some organizations are optimized for tenured/'old' employees(‘Type O’ organizations). Of course, there are organizations that are equally good (or equally bad!) for all the employees! However, ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations are quite common!

One easy way to determine the type of the organization is to see how employee engagement scores vary with tenure. Yes, the dividing line between ‘new’ and ‘old’ varies across organizations  I have seen organizations where you become an ‘old employee’ as soon as you complete one year and I have seen organizations where you will be considered to be a ‘new employee’ till you complete about five years. While the median tenure of employees in the organization has some impact on this ‘new-old dividing line’, it is usually a matter of organization psychology and is not directly derived statistically!

In ‘Type N’ organizations, 'not being burdened by the past' is a great advantage. So, the new hires, especially new leaders, have the advantage. These tend to be organizations that believe that new employees are hired to solve particular problems or to seize particular opportunities that the existing employees have failed to do. In these organizations, ‘tenure’ seems to have psychological association with ‘inability to drive change’. They might even consider many of the existing employees to be part of the problem! Hence, new hire has an advantage, so long as he/she is considered ‘new’. The difficulty is that the ‘new’ employee can move to the ‘old’ category quite quickly (and even get fired fairly quickly). If this happens mainly because of an underlying/unstated assumption that ‘new is good’, this ‘new-old-out-new’ cycle can repeat!  

'Type O' organizations tend to believe that one needs to understand the organization context deeply before one can really contribute, especially at senior levels. So, tenure is valued. These also tend to be organizations where it takes quite a bit of time for a newcomer to figure out how the organization really works. In these organizations, often the effective style of influencing tends to be ‘indirect’ (almost like billiards- you hit something so that it goes and hits the target as compared to hitting the target directly)! This doesn’t mean that ‘Type O’ organizations don’t value performance. It is more matter of a newcomer taking time to figure out how to perform better. Things get progressively easier as you spend more time in the organization. In a way, it is like batting on a difficult wicket. It takes time to ‘get your eye in’ but things become much easier after that. It becomes so wasteful to 'throw your wicket away' (leave the organization) after having done all the hard work to 'get your eye in'.  

Now, let’s look at an interesting question :  “Can the organization type change?” The answer is ‘Yes’. This happens mostly when there is a leadership change at the CEO level and sometimes at CXO level. A new leader, hired with a transformation agenda, can view most of the tenured employees as ‘part of the problem to be solved’ and hence might replace them with external hires. If a critical mass of ‘new people’ are brought in (and ‘old people are vilified), the organization can move from Type O to Type N. Now, two scenarios can happen. The first one is that newly hired people and the CEO/CXO stays on for a long time and the organization starts drifting towards Type O. The second scenario is that the new CEO/CXO keeps on replacing may of the people (including many of the newly hired people) as soon as they become ‘old’ (e.g. after 1-2 years) and hence the organization continues to be Type N.

In 'Type O' organizations, the leadership (especially at CEO/CXO levels) tend to remain remarkably stable  and that increases the probability that the organization continues to be 'Type O'. It is when a 'Type O' organization under-performs for a long time that a 'Type N' CEO is brought in, and the possible shift to being a 'Type N' begins. If the new 'Type N' CEO doesn’t have sufficient powers, he/she can easily get lost in the system or the system might even reject him/her. This ‘reaction’ of the system can be one of the reasons why the new CEO might be tempted to make a lot of people changes. Of course, there are indeed wise 'Type N' CEOs who are very selective and fact-based about the people changes!

So what does this mean? It definitely makes sense to figure out if you are joining a 'Type N' or 'Type O' organization. It is part of the psychological alignment required on what good looks like! Obviously, it makes sense to join a Type O organizations only if you are willing to sweat it out for a long period – significantly beyond the 'new-old dividing line' in the organization. Since they are optimized for new people, it is easier to join type N and to come up to speed faster. But the danger is that of the transition from ‘new’ to ‘old’. So, one must join for the right reasons (beyond the organization being 'Type N'). Remaining a bit of an outsider can definitely help,  especially in driving change.  Of course, being a bit of an outsider while being a full member of the organisation is a delicate balancing act!

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!

On what good looks like : HR policies and processes

This post is an attempt to come back to a topic that we had explored here 7 years ago. The topic is the implications of the unstated assumptions that organizations and individuals have on 'what good looks like'. 

In the the previous post (See 'On what good looks like') we had explored this mainly from the point of view of selection decisions and 'person-organization fit'. In this post, let's look at it from the point of view of the different options for running the HR function, especially from the point of view of HR policies and processes.  

Now, if you were to ask me what is the significance of 7 years, I can only say that the number 7 is considered to be a 'perfect number' in many cultures and that some even associate mystical qualities to it!

When it comes to the underlying (unstated) definition of 'what good looks like' we had identified two themes that can be conceptualized as two ends of a continuum. They were 'absence of variation'  and 'presence of value' . Let's see what this means from the point of HR policies and processes.

In 'absence of variation' kind of organizations (where the definition of quality is similar to the 'Six Sigma' definition of quality), consistency of implementation of HR processes/policies is of paramount importance. This ensures ‘procedural justice’. This is also largely in line with HR models that emphasize process stability and maturity. This would mean very few or no exceptions! The essential message to the employees in this way of working is something like  "If you are eligible for something you don't have to ask for it (because you will get it without asking). If you are not eligible for something, then also you don't have to ask for it (because you won't get it even if you ask)."

In 'presence of value' kind if organizations(where the definition of quality is more like 'fitness for purpose'), the emphasis is on what makes most sense (adds most value) in a particular situation. This approach leads to a lot of flexibility in running HR (subject to some broad principles/HR philosophy and the laws of the land, of course). But it also can lead to a lot of exceptions. This, in turn, can lead to perceived inconsistency unless the HR and Business leaders have deeply understood the broad principles/HR philosophy and also have extensively communicated the same to the employees. 

Most of the companies find their equilibrium point somewhere in the continuum between the two polar opposites. The state of evolution of the company, the state of evolution of the HR function in the company, the industry in which the company operates, the culture of the company and the personal preferences of the leaders are often the factors that impact the choice of the equilibrium point. 

It can be argued that when the size a company becomes very large, it tends to gravitate towards the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'Paradox of HR systems' for a related discussion). 

It can also be said that in those contexts where 'the owner and the manager are the same person' (e.g. in the case of partnership firms and proprietor-driven companies) there is often an affinity towards the 'fitness for purpose' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'HRM in partnership firms' and 'Of owning and belonging' for more details)

Again, it can be argued that as the HR function in a company evolves, the underlying definition of 'what good looks like' often follows a U-curve kind of pattern - starting with 'fitness of purpose' kind of definition (as HR policies and processes are yet to take root). moving towards the 'absence of variation kind of definition' (when there are very detailed policies and procedures in place) and then coming back to 'presence of value'  kind of definition (when the policies and procedures are perceived to be too restrictive/bureaucratic). This is especially significant in companies that are operating in rapidly changing industries, and hence requiring more agility in terms of people management also. By the way, this 'U-curve' is a concept is found in many of the social sciences (See 'U-curve and Simplicity @  the other side of Complexity' for more details). A similar argument can be made in the case of some of the key enablers in HR, like behavioral competency frameworks, that assume that 'there is one right way of doing things' and hence comes very close to the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition (See 'Competency frameworks : An intermediate stage?' for more details).  

It is also possible to create some sort of a ‘synthesis’ of these two definitions of 'what good looks like' ('absence of variation' and 'presence of value') that act like the 'thesis' and the  'antithesis'. One pragmatic option could be to define the policies/procedures very clearly/in detail, and also define an exception process that is very tough!

Any comments/ideas?