Honesty

With honesty always being at the top of the list, it is essential that leaders are perceived to be honest if they want followership and great performance. Kouzes and Posner define leadership in this way:

‘… they first want to assure themselves that the person is worthy of trust. They want to know that the person is truthful, ethical and principled.’

So, what does this mean in practice? And what is its connection with top performance? Already, we have defined the realities of leadership in terms of response to events and the initiation of opportunities (with events to the fore). One aspect of honesty refers to standards, not just in the context of ethics and values but also in the level of performance you require from people in their work. One of the biggest barriers between the team and its own potential for excellence is that the team does not really know what the level of expectation is. Be clear, collectively and individually, not just in terms of what is right and wrong but also in terms of what good, or even great, looks like.

You can also think of honesty in the way you evaluate performance in relation to performance standards. This applies particularly to feedback/criticism. There is no such thing as negative feedback (a phrase used too often by experts who should know better). All feedback should be a positive experience, even when it relates to criticism. The rules of feedback live beyond the scope of this short e-book but the first primary rule, except in cases of very poor performance, is that you should invite the receiver to self-critique before you comment, on the basis that they may well identify their own vulnerabilities without you needing to and this self-realisation, and the subsequent self-initiating framework for improvement, makes the person far more likely to respond positively. Honesty does not include brutal honesty! With honesty comes diplomacy. It does not include things like undermining the abilities of others (even if you think your opinion is valid) or generalised statements such as, ‘You’re hopeless at this, aren’t you?’

This falls in line with what we call the coaching leadership style, developed by leadership expert and emotional intelligence populariser Daniel Goleman. However, even with the other person being encouraged to self-evaluate and respond, honesty requires that the person does not misunderstand the initial shortfall, the actions required to meet the challenge and the standard you expect.

Forward-looking

It is not about creating a mythical sense of the future, which, although interesting (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs certainly did not motivate their people by telling them the goal was to create a future where Apple and Microsoft were going to be amongst the world’s richest companies), is seen as being well beyond most people’s natural horizons. It is about creating meaning in people’s work through a sense of the future – micro: personal goals and macro: the vision for the organisation – and that this future is aligned with what people want for themselves.

Inspiring

A hibernating virus lurks in most teams. This virus is activated by the negative emotions expressed by the team leader and it is highly contagious. The virus spreads quickly and its effect is that people lose direction, problems are perceived as insoluble and initiative is lost. Few would say that inspiring performance is not a key element within the leadership remit but we might be surprised as to what actually constitutes inspirational behaviour in others.

Modern leadership experts talk of the value of authenticity. Bill George, a pioneer in the field of authentic leadership, talks of the value of finding your authentic self by listening to your life story a little more closely. The self-awareness that arises from this allows you to understand who you are and how you are seen by others. What is good about this (and this writer is often rather cynical about a precise leadership blueprint) is that it allows for a multitude of ways of being for effective leadership. The blueprint for inspiration may come from motivational speeches and great rhetoric, but it is just as likely to come from keeping calm in the storm, high work standards, experience, good decision making under pressure over time, consistency and top performance. The reality is that a lot of us are inspired by things other than those that traditionally are associated with inspirational leadership. You can be an inspiring leader and be an authentic you.

Competent

A typical scenario has a great technical person (good salesperson, engineer, lawyer) being promoted in a leader/manager role and being unable to perform the role because of a lack of people skills. In most situations, the leader does not have to be an expert – leaders often can get way too involved in task delivery when their primary need is to get the best performance for the team of people performing those tasks.

Being competent cuts two ways. Yes, good all-round knowledge of the specific skills needed to deliver the technical aspects of the job; but, more important still, the interpersonal skills needed to get results through people.

Your social intelligence

When psychologist David McClelland published his seminal article on ‘Testing for competence rather than intelligence’, the world was starting to tune into the idea that the measures of potential excellence and overall success in the workplace should not be limited to traditional measures of intelligence (such as Binet’s classic IQ test) but that workplace competence should be based on a far wider arc of capability (in reality, the traditional measures of intelligence test those things that academia values and therefore these tests support the academic hierarchy). Side by side with the rethinking that has occurred around intelligence/competence, has been a readjustment about how we perceive intelligence. The research tells us emphatically that the most intelligent (in a traditional sense), usually do not make the best leaders.

We are now more used to the idea that intelligence comes in many forms, thanks initially to the work of mulit-intelligence pioneer Howard Gardner and many others since. One of the intelligences to which Gardner referred is your interpersonal intelligence (as he called it) or social intelligence, as we now call it. Social intelligence emphasises your ability to be socially sensitive and to adapt your behaviour accordingly – an essential intelligence for anyone aspiring to leadership. Later on in this e-book we will look at your awareness of another intelligence – getting the right stuff done, what we might call practical intelligence, under ‘tasks’. Here we look at how your social awareness will lead to performance excellence through the use of appropriate leadership styles for the team as a whole and individual team members.

Behaviour – leadership style and performance

In a seminal study using global research, Daniel Goleman (an expert in emotional and social intelligence) and colleagues deduced that, typically, there are six styles that leaders use to get the best out of their teams (see below). These styles are not necessarily used in isolation from each other – often they work best in combination. The six styles, together with performance tips for individuals and teams, are addressed below.

1  Commanding: giving clear instructions when the situation demands it – ‘Do it this way’, ‘Do it the way I tell you’. This is valuable in a crisis or where there is a lack of knowledge in the team or with new recruits. It is not so good in most workplace situations and is particularly damaging where the team knows what it is doing anyway.

2  Visionary: creating a direction or bigger vision and inspiring the person concerned or the team to go for it. All the research tells us that purpose is a primary motivator. Most of us are inspired by a clear sense of direction to give better performance. The visionary style does this but the leader with a vision also makes sure the people are following (unlike the pacesetting style – see below). As with all the styles, you must have credibility to use this. If you are not credible, your people will not follow the vision.

3  Affiliative: this is a closer empathic style – ‘I feel with you’. You use this style because you care about the whole person and people generally. You are acting as the emotional glue of the team.

4  Participative: being consultative and inclusive with team members – the democratic approach to leadership.

5  Pacesetting : this is the classic ‘leading by example’ style – the assumption being that if I perform dynamically then everyone will follow.

6  Coaching: where your need is for personal and team learning, development and growth.

Minding your language

Sixty senior teams had their performance rated high, medium or low in a study reported in 2004 and conducted over a six-month period before then. The criteria for this assessment was based on profit and loss and customer feedback, amongst other things. Without knowing who the high, medium and low performers were, observers, over a six-month period, then made notes on the nature of the conversations those teams had when performing – in particular looking out for three things:

1. Use of positive and negative words.
2. Telling versus asking, e.g. ‘I think’ rather than ‘That’s interesting… tell me more.’
3. Talking about others and talking about self.

The really fascinating assessments came first: the lowest-performing teams took a telling approach 20 times more often than they asked questions; and the comparison between focus on self rather than others was even more stark – 30 times more likely to talk about self rather than others. The second, really interesting, element was that the high-performing teams were six times more likely to use positive rather than negative words. Finally, in high-performing teams (hopefully your aspiration as a leader), the telling/asking and self/other ratios were roughly 1:1.

This study tells us a lot about the nature of the conversations that high-performing teams have, and it also tells us a lot about the way in which we speak and encourage others to speak will impact on team performance. Do note that the original study referred to positive/negative interactions – here we refer just to the use of language.

So, what can you do to move the team towards the positive-, asking-, others-based conversations? First, take a look at yourself. When problems, setbacks and challenges occur, how do you respond and does a negative frame of mind reveal itself in similar language? Adopt positive language in difficult situations. There may be a problem but that does not mean there is not an excellent solution to be found. Keeping solution-focussed and avoiding the word ‘but’ is a good start point because it is an idea-killer word. You can also use the appropriate positive language of others as discussion catalysts rather than focussing on negative statements. Use will and can rather than might and perhaps. Finally, talk about successes as well as challenges. Too often, conversation and meeting agendas focus only on problems.

The asking-questions-based approach

Start by modelling the way with your own behaviour. Use who, what, why, where, when, how type questions as a mean of demonstrating your own (genuine) curiosity – you learn nothing through endless advocacy. The Nobel prize-winning physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi once said:

‘My mother made me a scientist without ever intending to. Every other Jewish mother in Brooklyn would ask her child after school: “So, did you learn anything today?” But not my mother. “Izzy,” she would say, “did you ask a good question today?”

The ‘other’ rather than ‘self-based’ conversation

Self-based conversation is often a symptom of an inward-looking team. Have conversations around those the team serves and talk about others in positive ways and not just for the sake of doing so, e.g. do not berate customers for not ‘doing what we want them to do’. Ask why they are not. Avoid the silo-mentality by using we in an organisational context – recognising that the team is part of something bigger than itself.

The direction

Refer back to forward-looking in the section ‘Your credibility’.

The tasks

The boundaries between managing and leading are blurred. Managers need to provide leadership and, as we saw in the opening section ‘The challenge’, the reality of a leader’s life is not just big visions and new initiatives but is rather more about dealing with events demanding quick solutions. So, while acknowledging that we are now moving rather nearer to management territory, the act of getting stuff done sits neatly in both your management and leadership remit. To start this process, you need a good helicopter view of the capabilities and motivation levels of both the team as a whole and the individuals within it. We use a simple ‘can do, will do’ model to help you with this. We then look at a classic process, developed by leadership performance experts Tannenbaum and Schmidt, which I have adapted to reflect modern approaches, that will help you decide the level of freedom you give the team in deciding what tasks people do and how they do them. The aim of all of this is to encourage maximum team and individual performance as well as professional development.

‘Can do, will do’ – the core performance ingredients

‘Can do, will do’ places two elements at the centre of getting tasks done. ‘Can do’ refers to the knowledge and skills a person has; ‘will do’ refers to the willingness/motivation to do it. This is presented in the four quadrants below. Our focus will be on the ‘will do, can’t do’ and the ‘won’t do, can do’ boxes.

Who does what?

Earlier in this e-book we looked at a number of different styles of managing/leading. Those styles tell us that the decisions about who does what and how it is done should not be based on personal preferences, e.g. ‘I am a leader/manager who prefers to give instructions and for people to follow my instructions’ or, conversely, ‘I am a leader/manager who thinks people perform best when they are given complete freedom to express themselves and, therefore, I am hands off.’ In reality, your decision should be based on an analysis of the situation and what it is you think will deliver the best performance in the situation, relative to what needs to be done. A simple way of demonstrating this can be seen in the model below and an explanation follows it.

ASSESS YOURSELF

As you read this, refer back to the earlier section on your own leadership default style – at one extreme sits the kind of leader who prefers complete control and who, therefore, has a default tight commanding leadership style and at the other sits the leader who likes to be looser, giving total freedom to team members – and the team as a whole. In reality, we all sit between the two extremes and most leaders/managers understand the importance of fluidity between the two extremes. Review now the tight/loose criteria you apply when deciding how things get done before you read on.

Over time, as individuals and teams get more experienced and skilled (can do), then more of the work they do should be moved along the continuum, so that you have less involvement (because your involvement is no longer necessary) and, therefore, there is less restraint on the person concerned. Everyone’s job should contain new challenges, even for the most experienced, and the skilled leader/manager should be looking to add more to each person’s repertoire. New challenges may well be presented as commands, but will move from left to right over time. What performance levels can you expect from those whose jobs never move away from being told what to do? High performance comes from personal and team growth and ultimate liberation in parts of the job.

Research says that people tend to perform better the more trust that is shown in them. Adherence to command and tell demonstrates lack of trust and will deliver only a certain base level of performance for a time. Do not let mistakes get in the way of trustworthiness. We improve as we learn from our mistakes. Mistakes are essential. You must expect them in the delegates and liberates approaches and people should not fear reprisal here. The realm for mistakes increases as we move from left (commands – no mistakes) to right (liberates – mistakes will be made).

TIP

There will be areas of the job, such as safety, legality and tight monetary control where the command or sell approach are all that is needed – ‘It must be done this way and this is unlikely to change.’ That is ok, but quickly remove anything that unnecessarily sits here.

POTENTIAL PITFALL

A classic pitfall is to delegate full accountability. You are always accountable for the team’s actions to those above you in your organisation and to customers. Delegation means referring decision making and responsibility down to the lowest possible level. It does not mean you point the finger of blame away from yourself when mistakes are made and problems encountered.

The spirit

Take a moment now to think about the collective sprit within your team. Write down four or five adjectives that describe this spirit. What do they point towards – is the spirit good, bad or indifferent?

There are pockets of passion in some of the most dysfunctional organisations and sometimes this can be put down to the leadership provided by the team leader. Of course, team members are not empty vessels into which leadership is poured and some may be motivated innately to do the things you want them to (mostly because they want to do them anyway). Perhaps the real issue is that, in some teams that I have come across, there does not really appear to be a spirit at all. In others you can feel a great spirit right away. So, what can you do to create a good team spirit? Here are five suggestions:

1  Shared memorable experiences – you are likely to spend approximately 100,000 hours at work. That is an awfully long time simply to be existing. Shared experiences can be work-related, but some should be social. Encourage everyone to know each other in ways beyond the workplace façade. Shared experiences create emotional bonds – people want to perform for each other.

2  Collaboration – authentic me is what we strive for. A true collaborative team evolves when the diversity of personalities are able to express themselves naturally.

3  Accentuate the positive – teamwork can often seem like a procession of problem-solving conversations. Talk about what is going well.

4  Resolve conflict and disagreement – do this quickly – do not let conflict and disagreement fester.

5  Watch yourself – keep your own spirits up – not unnaturally so – as moodiness will affect the team

The support

Although it has been around since the 1970s, the practice of servant leadership has found its time. If leadership is a gift from those who are willing to be led by you (which it is), then it follows that you are at the service of those who are led. If that sounds a little strange (it rather goes against those old macho leadership stereotypes of bygone years), it is actually a very logical approach to maximising performance. This style brings together the apparent paradox of serving and leadership. It has a greater concern for the wellbeing of communities and wider society as well as individuals who are our primary interest here.

Its originator Robert Greenleaf refers to it as a way of being with people that encompasses the full of range of skills associated with inter-personal intelligence. As he says:

‘… (the first test) is to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being met. Do those being served grow as persons: do they, while being served become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to serve?’

So much about servant leadership chimes with what has been said about leadership, teams and performance in this e-book and connects with the deeply personalised approach inherent in servant leadership, acting as a perfect summary for leaders who want top performance from their teams:

• Look after the needs of each team member – see yourself as a steward of what is important to them, including their best personal resources.
• Make connections between people’s personal aspirations and their goals.
• Commit deeply to the growth of each team member.
• Share your power, for example in decision making.
• Climb into other people’s worlds – through empathy. By understanding what makes them special and unique, you find what it is that makes them want to perform.

Do these things and not only do you earn the right to lead, you also get a team who want to give the best of themselves for you – to perform at a level that neither you nor they may have thought possible. This, surely, is the greatest aspiration for any leader.

Step 1: Your credibility

• Work on the four factors that give you leadership credibility. Be honest, competent, inspiring and forward-looking. Click here to review.

Step 2: Your behaviour

• Check in with your own behaviour:
  • Your social intelligence, in particular your awareness of what is going on around you. Click here to review.
  • Your adoption of the appropriate styles of leading/managing people and the team to get the best performance from them. Click here to review.
  • Picking up on the power of positive language, appropriate questioning and an orientation towards others rather than oneself. Click here to review.

Step 3: Core leadership functions – performance

• Concentrate your efforts in the four leadership functions that deliver best performance:
  • The direction. Make sure people know why they are doing what they are doing. Everything must have a purpose. Click here to review.
  • The tasks. Build a can-do, will-do team culture. Click here to review.
  • The spirit. Fun, humour, positive relationships, supportive, collaborative. These words spring to mind when we think of the best performing teams in organisations. Click here to review.
  • The support. Meeting people’s highest priority needs. Click here to review.