Leadership: what is it really?
By Norman Wolfe
Much of the conversations around leadership center on what might be called the soft side: vision, inspiration, emotional intelligence and vulnerability. While these are important elements, we propose a deeper perspective; leadership is balancing multiple opposing forces to produce the results that the organization promises.
Let’s start with a basic premise. In the world of business, there are two determinants that drive all else: 1) to produce results and 2) within a defined timeframe. All things must pass through this basic framework, for without this overarching context nothing else matters.
Leadership is the skill of bringing into balance all the forces necessary that will ensure the organization achieves the results within a desired timeframe. Viewed this way, the real challenge of leadership is to know what the opposing forces are and how to convert them from opposing forces to complimentary forces.
Some of the opposing forces are obvious and require nothing more than making a choice between two options. Where the challenge lies is when the two opposing forces are not easily reconciled, which leads to a blockage of the energy flowing through the organization, that is progress halts.
We were working with a division president planning for the coming year. This division was charged with bringing out a new product platform and had been in an investment mode for the last couple of years. The president was going to ask the board for another year of investment. After reviewing the plan, it was obvious to me that this was not the right course of action. The organization was out of balance and asking for another year of investment would not have solved the problem.
The action required was a major reduction in force and he knew it, but the way he framed the issue prevented him from making the right choice. Progress was blocked.
He framed the issue as an either/or choice. He either lay off people, something that was counter to the corporate culture of being very loyal to the people, or he would keep losing money. He would rather go to the board asking for another year of investment then lay off people who were very loyal to him. Some might say this is a no-brainer in the world of business, but is it really?
I know the press likes to portray CEOs as ruthless, not caring about the people, laying off employees at the slightest downturn in profits. This has not been my experience. I have found that most leaders struggle with this very decision and others like it for exactly the same reason; “either” the organization wins “or” the people win, “either” the supplier wins “or” the organization wins, “either” we satisfy short term expectations “or” we invest in the future. The list is endless.
Framing a decision as either / or will rarely yield effective choices and will certainly not bring the organization into balance. Think of it as a scale with “either” on one side and “or’ on the other. Effective resolutions will be found when the two are in balance with an “and” solution. So to bring balance to the organization the leader’s challenge is to frame the issue so that it yields an “and” solution.
He realized that having too many people did not add value to the organization’s attempt to bring the product out on time. In fact, it actually led to slowing things down (too many cooks…). What he struggled with was the internal conflict of letting loyal people go.
We helped him reframe the issue by seeing that many of the people were disgruntled, because they knew they were not contributing to the success of the organization. That letting them people go would allow them to find positions where they could feel more valuable and would allow those remaining to be more effective. Helping him view the decision from a balanced perspective, taking into account the experience of all the people, allowed him to hold a different viewpoint on layoffs. This was the “and” condition that had to be discovered before an effective decision could be made.
Seeing the opposites now as complements--greater efficiency with fewer people and people wanting to be in a place where they could make a contribution – made the decision a successful one on all accounts. The reduction in force went smoothly and the organization turned profitable within one quarter.
This is but one example of being in an out-of-balance situation. If the organization is struggling through poor sales, ineffective new products, lack of bench depth in management, etc., it is time to examine where the organization is out of balance. It takes an objective leader to see where the issue is framed as either/or and opposing forces are at play.
When the opposites are resolved to their compliments, when we see the situation as having complimenting forces rather than opposing forces, then we can find the solution that brings balance to the organization.
Some might say reframing an issue to resolve the opposites is nothing but a semantics game. While reframing can be viewed merely as redefining the situation or playing with words, it goes much deeper than that. Einstein once said that a problem could never be solved at the level at which it was created. Only by reframing the issue could one discover its true solution. Others have said that the solution lies in how one asks the question. Yes, reframing is a matter of redefining the conflict such that the true and balanced solution can be discovered. The universe always works most effectively when its forces are in balance. So do organizations.
Interesting side note, the way I discovered the organization in the example was out of balance was by listening to the collective voice of the organization. As I spent time with the key people in the organization, they all knew they were “bloated” with staff. People within the organization know when it is out of balance and organizations like nature seek balance.
Leadership then is all about finding balance, the balance that resolves the opposing forces into its complements.
|
