Of Espoused Competencies, Enacted Competencies and Janus-faced Leaders

"All models are wrong, but some are useful!"

We often talk about espoused values (professed/stated values of the organization), enacted values (the values the organization actually lives by) and the ‘cognitive dissonance’ that the employees/stakeholders experience because of the difference between the two (Please see ’Of espoused values and enacted values’ for more). A similar point can be made in the case of leadership competency frameworks also.

Most of the companies have leadership competency frameworks. They are supposed to outline the competencies that will make one successful as a leader in the organization (see 'Of competencies and carbohydrates' for more on competencies). They also serve as the basis for leadership development, leadership hiring, leadership succession and performance management for leaders. 

The above mentioned ‘cognitive dissonance’ occurs here also when one compares the ‘demonstrated/enacted competencies’ of the successful leaders in the organization (what is actually required to be successful as a leader in the organization) with the competencies mentioned in the leadership competency framework (the stated competencies) and find that there are significant differences between the two. 

In addition to causing confusion, this also implies that leadership hiring, leadership development, leadership succession, performance management for leaders etc. are being done based on wrong assumptions. This can adversely affect organization effectiveness, apart from wasting time and money and causing avoidable human suffering in organizations. Therefore, we need to look into this in a bit more detail.

Organizations meticulously craft leadership competency frameworks that delineate the behaviors considered vital for a leader’s success in the organization. These frameworks are replete with ideals such as integrity, communication, strategic thinking, and empathy. However, beyond these polished documents, lies an unspoken truth: leaders who are most 'successful' in the organization (as indicated by rewards and career growth) often exhibit traits that are sometimes contrary to these prescribed competencies. This situation can arise from problems in the approach used to arrive at the leadership competency model. For example, the leadership competency model might have been created based on a 'wish list' of competencies as opposed to developing it through on a structured competency mapping exercise based on the actual leadership behaviors and their degree of success in the organization. This can make the leadership competency framework more of a 'convenient collective delusion'.   

Now let's come to the leaders who are very successful in the organization, without demonstrating most the competencies outlined in the leadership competency model. One interesting category among these leaders are the 'Janus-faced leaders' – those who embody dichotomies in their leadership styles and are rewarded for it. These kinds of leaders are most commonly found in hierarchical organizations. Janus, the Roman god with two faces, one looking to the future and one to the past, provides a fitting metaphor for this kind of leadership. In modern terms, Janus-faced leaders adeptly navigate upward and downward relationships in dramatically different manners. They may present a facade of deference and subservience to their superiors while simultaneously displaying a demanding and exacting approach to their own teams (please see 'Followership behaviors of leaders' for more)

These leaders are often perceived as highly effective by their superiors because they create the impression that they are ‘squeezing out maximum performance from their team’ and because they shield upper management from unpleasant realities of organization life. They are also amazingly good in taking credit when something good happens and blaming their team (or restructuring their team) when something goes wrong. Of course, this comes at the cost of team morale and trust. However, if the Janus-faced leader is able to create the impression that the team is not competent and are being to deliver only because of the ‘tough love’ of the leader, this might not matter to the senior leadership.

Another unacknowledged 'competency' that often characterizes successful leaders is the ability to "suffer in silence". Leaders are expected to bear the weight of responsibility without complaint, to absorb the pressures of high-stakes decision-making, and to manage their own stress without it spilling over onto their teams or affecting their performance. This stoic disposition is seldom featured in leadership models, but it is an unspoken expectation and a reality for many at the top. This can lead to emotional labor and even to 'smiling depression' among the leaders. 

The irony here is not that these unspoken competencies exist, but rather that organizations continue to espouse frameworks that do not fully capture the reality of leadership success. There is a need for a more holistic and perhaps more candid conversation about what effective leadership really entails – including both the noble and the ignoble traits (the bright and the dark sides of leadership).

Having highlighted this, let’s look at a couple of counter arguments. It can be argued that that the competencies mentioned in the framework are aspirational/futuristic – competencies required to be successful as a leader in the future. This is sort of ‘what got you here won’t get you there’ kind of argument. The problem happens when the ‘future’ never arrives!  Another counter argument is that we shouldn’t reinforce negative aspects of successful leadership in the organization, by highlighting them (or 'institutionalizing them' by including them in the leadership competency framework). This definitely has merit. The problem is just that by pushing these negative aspects of successful leaders under the carpet, we reduce the chance that they will ever be addressed! Of course, this requires a deep and often tricky intervention to address (See 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for an approach that might be helpful in this context).

It is time for organizations to reflect on the complexity of leadership and recognize that the sanitized version presented in competency frameworks is often at odds with the less savory – yet effective – traits and behaviors that contribute to a leader’s success. Until we can openly discuss and integrate these aspects, we will continue to hire/ prepare leaders for an idealized world that is far removed from the one they actually inhabit.

 Any comments?

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?

Of Leadership training and Corporate Rain dance

A couple of weeks ago, I came across a report which said that in the current difficult economic scenario, Indian companies are investing more in leadership training programs for their senior managers. The ‘espoused interpretation’ for this was that it will help the senior managers to be better leaders, enabling them to respond more effectively to the challenging scenario. While this was certainly a possibility, it did make me wonder if there are other interpretations possible. That is where rain dance comes in.

Let us begin by taking a closer look at the terms.

Rain dance is a ritual that is intended to invoke rain. The rain dance was common among tribes who lived in regions that received very little rain. Since the little rain they did receive was essential for their survival, they felt compelled to something to invoke rain (to influence their destiny). The result was rain dances. Over a period of time, intricate rain dance rituals were developed (that were supposed to do a better job when it comes to rainmaking). While there is no empirical evidence that rain dances caused rain, they did serve other useful purposes like giving them hope, enabling them to feel that they have some degree of control over their destiny/environment, deepening relationships among the members of the tribe etc.  

Leadership training involves all the training programs (Instructor-Led-Training programs) that employees are sent to with the purpose of making them ‘better leaders’ (whatever that might mean). These can be internal or external training programs (often designed/delivered by consultants/business schools). They are usually conducted off site (away from the pressures and distractions of regular work) and are often very expensive.

Corporate rain dance would mean rituals (events/ceremonies/programs) in corporate life that are designed to achieve an essential business objective (better business results/business survival in difficult times etc.) without sufficient empirical evidence that the ritual actually leads to the intended outcome. Going back to the report on the increased investment in leadership development programs, it made me wonder if they (at least to some extent) constitute some sort of corporate rain dance. Of course, there are other examples of corporate rain dance, including many types of ‘strategic business planning meetings’!

I have nothing against rituals in corporate life. Businesses are run by human beings and rituals have always played an important role in human societies. Please see ‘Accelerated learning and Rites of passage’ for an example of how to leverage the power of rituals in business organizations. It is just that we should be aware of what they can and cannot do when we are investing in them.

Leadership training is a Multi-Billion-Dollar industry. There is also a huge amount of literature on ‘leadership’. I have no intention to get into a detailed discussion on ‘leadership’ here. (Please see ‘Of leaders and battle-scars’, ‘The leadership sandwich’ & ‘Reasons, Rationalizations Collective Delusions’ for some of my thoughts). For the purpose of this post, I will just raise the top five questions that have been bothering me("The best fool can ask more than the wisest man can tell" J).

1. If ‘learning’ is defined as ‘sustained change in behavior’ how much empirical evidence exists that ‘learning’ results from leadership training programs?
2. There are many people in top management positions who speak eloquently about the great leadership training programs their companies have. However, I have rarely heard anyone of them talking about a particular leadership training program they have attended that made them (or played a big part in making them) who they are now.
3.  If ‘leadership development’ goes much beyond ‘leadership training’ (and if leadership is supposed to be learned ‘on the job’ supported by coaching) then why is most of the money/effort is concentrated on ‘offsite’ leadership training? 
4. To what extent are the designs of leadership training programs based on a deep understanding of the concept of leadership? If the design is based on a particular leadership model/theory, has enough effort been made to check the empirical validity of the theory/model?
5. If the underlying model of leadership goes beyond the traits and leadership style of the leader, to focus on the relationship between the leader and the followers, then why emphasis is only on training the leaders? Can any form of leadership (including thought leadership) exist without followers? 

Now, let us look at another type of ‘corporate rain dance’ that happens frequently in the domain of leadership development : redesigning leadership competency frameworks & then redesigning all the leadership training programs based  on the new competency framework. Here also the underlying belief (that leads to the rain dance) is that by changing the leadership competency framework we can build better leaders and thereby improve business performance. Sometimes, this can also be a case of 'Training the Victim'. A few years ago, I heard (from reliable sources) about a global company, that changed its leadership competency framework because the new CEO said something like ‘Leaders should Lead’ in a meeting with the HR Leadership team. In response to that statement from the CEO, the HR Head ordered redesign of the leadership competency framework & all the leadership training programs based on the same, spending Millions of Dollars. It also ensured that HR people at the global corporate office (who were under the threat of losing their jobs) kept their jobs and (as the company was a global giant) it contributed to the GDP of many countries in terms of spend on downstream work like ‘Train the Trainer programs’, reprinting of program material & of course putting the leaders through the newly developed training programs.

I am not saying that one should not redesign leadership competency frameworks. It is very easy to find fault with any leadership competency framework and hence no one can argue against the need to redesign the same. The trouble is just that the new framework might also have an equal number of (but possibly different) problems. Hence, unless there is a very clear difference between the new and the old leadership competency framework (that too very clearly aligned to a key strategic priority), the Return On Investment is unlikely to be positive. I also think that ‘competency frameworks are only an intermediate stage’ and that one needs to go beyond them..

Now, let us come back to leadership training programs. What exactly am I trying to say?

One does pick up useful insights, ideas and concepts from these programs. They provide a welcome break from the unpleasant realities of work. They can also act as some kind of signalling mechanism - to communicate (to the participants & to the significant others around them) that some people have been identified as leaders.

Like rain dance, they provide an opportunity connect more deeply with colleagues, provide new hope to the participants & provide satisfaction to the business head that something is being done to improve the business situation. The participants might also see them as recognition/reward– especially if the program is offered only to a select few/if the program is considered to be a prestigious one/if the program is an expensive one (remember, it is tax efficient also - for both the employer and the employee!) . The program might even have some placebo effect on leadership behaviors!J 

Going back to another beneficial dimension of rituals, leadership training programs can also act as 'rites of passage'/'initiation rites' to leadership-  especially if they (like initiation rites in tribal societies) involve doing 'dangerous things'; this danger can be either psychological (like doing something silly in front of a group) or physical (like what happens in some of the outbound training programs) - as they help in transitioning to a new self!! Hence, just as rain dance served a useful purpose in tribal societies for many centuries, leadership training programs can also serve a useful purpose in business organizations – even if that purpose is not the same as the espoused purpose!

If, the rain dance (leadership training program) is not leading to rain (developing better leaders), the organization should seriously consider whether to invest more in 'making the dance better' (e.g. by adding more modules to the leadership training program) or to explore other ways for rainmaking. Improving the dance can add to its value as a ritual up to a point (but not beyond that). Of course, it is possible that some of the other popular ways of rainmaking (e.g. 360 degree feedback) might also turn out to be 'rain dances'! But some of them (e.g. putting people through roles designed to provide a higher learning potential & helping them to derive meaning from their experience in those roles through coaching) might actually work!!!   

Any comments/ideas?