Authentic: Like It or Not

Confession:  I’ve never been accused of being particularly soft-spoken.  I speak my mind, always attempting to provide a factual and respectful perspective when I point out leadership, political, or social hypocrisy and injustice.  And I can be quite pointed, even harsh, in my insistence on leadership transparency.

My philosophy’s always been this:

If you disagree with my perspective, be that political, religious, or with regard to leadership styles, principles, etc., I can respect that difference.  For example, I have some very good friends who hold vastly divergent political beliefs to mine.  As long as their beliefs are founded in a firm understanding of the issues, I will intellectually challenge them, but not disparage their stances.  If, however, their perspectives are based on ignorance and un-vetted media soundbites, my gloves come off.

Similarly, I am a firm believer in servant leadership, transformational leadership, and emotionally intelligent leadership.  I do understand there are many examples of appropriate and effective transactional, authoritative, and autocratic leadership.  I’d simply not work well under such leaders and would not choose to employ such methods in my own leadership roles.

Where my criticisms ring strongest, however, are toward those leaders who claim one style, yet employ another, where unethical and injust leadership trumps the social contract that should exist in organizations, and where greed and leadership insecurity undermine organizational effectiveness and actually create hostile workplaces.  In short, where humanity and humility in leadership fail…..the pit bull in me is released.  I go for the jugular, and I’ll hold on until the last gasp of unjust leadership ceases.

So, why am I devoting a blog article to this “confession?”

It’s all about authenticity.  And, yes, branding.

I learned the hard way that I am an ineffective worker when forced to conform to rules, processes, and leadership styles that I believe to be flawed or ill-conceived.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ll work diligently to improve all organizations (public, private, non-profit, volunteer, community….) with which I interact.  But if what an organization is seeking is a mindless automaton, look elsewhere.  I can’t thrive in such an environment, and I’m hardly alone in that sentiment.  Unfortunately, not as many have had the opportunities I have to self-determine my own career.  Too many workers feel stuck in organizations that stifle and suffocate their passion and engagement to truly provide value.

So, I’m a bit outspoken at times about leadership actions that are pulling organizations downward and taking their skilled, talented, and unbelievably bright employees with them.  I don’t apologize for being that way.  In fact, I embrace it.  Whether an internal employee, a soldier, a sailor, or an external consultant, I’ve never been a “Yes Man.”  I push back.  I challenge.  I praise the good, and I chastise the errant (respectfully, and, when directed at a single individual, privately).

It’s who I am.  It’s who I’ll be.  And those leaders who understand that they are not perfect, they are not the “smartest in the room,” they are not more entitled than the line workers, but rather just a specialized cog in a team wheel…those leaders appreciate the honest feedback and perspectives I bring.

So, when I hear consternation about my outspoken nature, I instinctively begin to ponder what kind of leader would object to what I have to say.  And typically, my conclusion….they aren’t leaders at all, regardless of title.  Good leaders want constructive criticism, expect pushback, and seek out alternative perspectives.  And those are the leaders with which I align myself.  And I do so without reservation and without apology.  It’s who I am.  It’s my authenticity.

The Positive Side of Retreat (or Tactical Retrograde)

There’s a saying in the Army….”We never retreat.”  Instead, when positions is being overrun or when faced with overwhelming opposition, units conduct a “tactical retrograde.”

What’s the difference, you may ask?  It would be a good question, because while technical aspects may differentiate a retreat from a retrograde, it comes down to one thing.  Saving face and putting a positive spin on the message.

At some point in the past, a flag officer likely decided that to admit “retreat” was psychologically damaging to the soldiers on the front line.  If he could, instead, reframe the maneuver as a positive, tactically advantageous action, the morale and willingness to continue the fight would be maintained.  Call it a measure of positive spin.

Ask any private, however, and he’ll roll his eyes and shake his head.  Why? Because he knows better than to fool himself into thinking there is a substantive difference between the two.  From his vantage point, either way, his butt is saved, and he is grateful.

It’s really no different in the corporate world.  Leaders often hesitate or actually refuse to acknowledge situations in which the prudent action is to move backward.  To “retreat” is somehow to admit failure, as if such is: 1) validation of personal weakness or careless mistakes, or 2) a true step backward.

In reality, learning organizations should accept the opportunity to take a step backward, when appropriate, as ultimately a step in the right direction.  The need to retreat is not necessarily a result of poor planning or execution.  Sometimes it’s the unanticipated reality caused by third party actions or decisions that have fundamentally changed the assumptions upon which initial planning and decisions were based.  In fact, refusal to retreat may be the WORST thing a leader can do.

Take a step back, regrouping, reanalyzing the dynamic and fluid environment in which your organization is operating, and reestablishing the tactical advantage is not a sign of weakness.  It is a sign of self-aware, adaptive, and mature leadership.  These are traits to be sought out, to be nurtured in leaders.

So, next time your organization is facing an overwhelming competitive disadvantage, choose retreat (or tactical retrograde, if you’re inclined toward insecure leadership).  Make the strong leadership decision, and save your “troops” to fight another day.

The Buck Stops Here…Or Does it?

Leadership’s a tricky thing, and not always all that fun.  Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.  Jamie Dimon might agree, as would Scott Thompson.  All three execs have found themselves embroiled in controversy in the past several weeks.

In the past year, we’ve seen accountability bubble steadily upward after various incidents involving the U.S. military member actions in Afghanistan.  A few years ago, it was the abuse scandal of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.  Always, a rallying call for leaders’ heads is heard.  Sometimes the leaders are punished, other times not.

Who really is to blame when scandals hit organizations?  Well, clearly it depends on the circumstance, but more often than not, I’d argue the leaders are ultimately accountable.  Here’s why…

It’s all about culture.  And culture is all about leadership.

Think about it.  It’s the leaders of any organization who set the direction and feel of an organization.  Sometimes that’s a loose, innovative, free-wheeling culture, and sometimes it’s a hierarchical, authoritarian, “by-the-book” set of standards and norms.  Jack Welch ran GE in a very formalized fashion, whereas Tony Hsieh has a cubicle amongst all the other cubicles at Zappos.  Both organizations (under their respective leaders) are models of successful, profitable machines in their own right.

The ethics and personal values of the individual leader set the tone for the entire organization.  Simply setting policy doesn’t necessarily the culture.  And merely tweeting as CEO doesn’t change the culture.  But when an executive lives, breathes, and preaches a set of values, and ultimately holds subordinate leaders accountable for those same values, culture begins to shift and solidify.

So, do the values of the leader then mitigate any chance of impropriety within the ranks?  Of course not.  Unfortunately, people at all levels will make mistakes, act irresponsibly or without morales, and, in extreme cases, commit atrocities.  And the individual need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  The leader, however, does bear some responsibility, in my opinion.

Of course, to take that perspective to the extreme, very few individuals would ever accept leadership roles.  To do so would be akin to career suicide.  Or would it?

You see, perfection within the ranks is not the hallmark of strong leadership.  Mistakes will happen.  Wrongs will occur.  But despite that, leaders who can demonstrate, when such situations rear their ugly heads, that they did everything to promote and champion a positive environment of ethical and morale professionalism will prevail.

The military commanders in Afghanistan should be held accountable for the atrocities committed by their troops on the ground.  But that accountability should come in the form of an investigation into whether or not the culture they individually promoted contributed to the atrocities, or if the atrocities occurred in spite of the culture they championed.  In the former, prosecute the leaders as though they themselves perpetrated a crime.  But in the latter, commend the leaders for the positive and uplifting example of ethical leadership they instilled in the majority of their soldiers and/or employees.

Not everyone follows a leader, but as long as the leader is leading with positive and ethical intentions, that’s all that we can ask.  Where they’re not…..well, that’s a different story entirely.