Why do 50% of leaders fail?

In my passion to encourage and promote evidence-based approaches to management and leadership (as opposed to the particularly high proportion of mumbo-jumbo that the subject seems to attract) I was delighted to stumble upon this gem from INSEAD’s Professor of Organisational Behaviour,Michael Jarret.  

In this thirteen-minute interview, he has evidence-based answers for questions like:

1. Why do 50% of leaders fail? 
2. Does personality make a leader?
3. What are the big five factors for successful leadership? 
4. How can we recruit and select good leaders? 
5. Is managing upwards good, bad or indifferent?
6. Is it important for the leader to be upbeat in the workplace? 
7. Does leadership coaching really work? 
8. What are the challenges of managing X and Y gens?
9. How will the culture of leadership change over the next ten years? 

Hope you enjoy this as much as I did!

Theory X or Theory Y Manager?

“The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.” 

So wrote MIT Professor Douglas McGregor in the late 1950’s in describing an attitude of many managers, common then as it is now. 

McGregor proposed that managers’ attitude to their employees fall somewhere on a continuum of “Theory X” managers on one end and “Theory Y” managers on the other. 

The Theory X Manager believes that his employees:    

• Have a built-in dislike of work and will avoid it if they can,
• Have to be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment,
• Want to directed,
• Want to avoid responsibility, and
• Have very little ambition.

On the other hand, the Theory Y manager believes that her employees:   

• See effort in the workplace as natural as it is at rest or play,
• Welcome opportunities to be self-directed,
• Enjoy the satisfaction of achievement,
• Don't want to avoid responsibility, but rather seek it, and
• want the opportunity to be very creative and imaginative at work.

 The implications for management style are clear. 

The Theory X manager will tend to be distrusting and micro-managing.  He will tend to be poor at delegating and somewhat distance in his relationships. He will tend to see his role as policemen and judge. 

The Theory Y manager will tend to be more relational, more engaged with her team and will try to create a more collaborative workplace.  She tends to see herself as one who resources and supports the team and takes responsibility for their emotional safety. 

(By the way, all these things are true of organisations, too.  Just as there are Theory X and Theory Y managers, so there are organisations that tend to either one end or the other of the continuum.  Scary, huh?)

So, armed with this information, here are two important questions for you to think about. 

1. Which style of management is likely to be the most effective? 
2. Which style of manager are you?   

 To help you answer the second question, here’s a quick self-test:  

Which of these statements more closely represents the way you think? 

Statement 1:

Theory X:       I have to keep on their backs otherwise they would slack off.

Theory Y:       I am confident of my team and their integrity to put in their best effort.

Statement 2:

Theory X:       I would tell someone off or even fire them sometimes as an example to keep everyone else on their toes.

Theory Y:       I only punish people respectfully, in private and after due process.

Statement 3:

Theory X:       As boss, I am the only one who should make decisions.

Theory Y:       I appropriately involve members of the team in decision making, according to their levels of capacity and responsibility.

Statement 4:

Theory X:       I keep my distance because it's important for the boss to be remote to maintain respect.

Theory Y:       I am relational with my team, understanding that the quality of my relationship with them will reflect in the standard of their work.

Statement 5:

Theory X:       When things go wrong my first thought is to blame members of the workforce.

Theory Y:       When things go wrong my first thought is to consider if and where I may have gone wrong.

Statement 6:

Theory X:       At the discussion table, my opinion is the one that counts.

Theory Y:       I sometimes remain quiet in meetings so that team members can express their ideas and creativity.

Why tasks don’t stay delegated

Have you ever wondered why tasks don’t stay delegated?  Sometimes it seems that even the simplest of tasks need so much hands-on supervision we can’t help thinking “It would have been easier to do it myself!”

This is even truer in an environment such as a not-for-profit or church in which most of our “workers” are volunteers with a heart of gold who want to serve the Lord, giving of themselves sacrificially, and whom we feel we cannot performance-manage in the same way we would in a professional workplace.

Of course, it doesn’t make sense to give into the temptation to do the job ourselves.  We do that and we cease to be a leader / manager. 

Some years ago, I had a conversation with a corps officer who was going through this frustration.  He had a corps treasurer who was a lovely saintly soul; honest and reliable, caring and compassionate, but lacking in attention to detail.  The result was a high level of errors, reports not completed on time, and a considerable amount of checking and fixing that the CO had to do. 

The CO was so frustrated that he said he was thinking about taking the role off the treasurer and doing the task himself.   During the course of our conversation, I asked him if there was another person who could take on the role.  There was not.  I asked him how much time he actually spent on checking up on the treasurer.  He said about one to two hours a week.  I asked him how much time it would take if he took over the treasurer’s role.  He said about four or five hours.  So, we concluded, even under these adverse conditions he has saved himself between two and four hours every week by delegating.

In most cases like this, a proper assessment of the situation will confirm that, even if you have to do a lot of massaging, a delegated task is best left delegated. 

I went on to ask the officer what he was doing to skill up the treasurer.  He expressed the thought (herein somewhat sanitised) that the treasurer was working to his capacity and that he was not going to improve no matter what. 

“Does he know that you check and fix his work?  I asked.  “We have never discussed it, but he must know, because the figures are changed”, he replied.  We talked about how that may make the treasurer feel. 

“Why not give him a compassionate and caring feedback session based on the fixes you make each week?” I ventured.  “There is no need to be judgemental, just make a note of the changes and explain them to him.  Make sure that you communicate your appreciation of him doing the job and point out some of the things that are going right as well.” 

To be honest, neither of us expected this approach to make much of a difference, but we felt that it was doing the right thing by the treasurer.  So I was surprised when I met the corps officer a few months later and he reported both a change in attitude and an improvement in accuracy.  (There are a whole load of psychological and practical reasons why this approach works, but that’s for another post maybe.)

Delegation (especially with volunteers) has to geared to both the nature of the person and the nature of the job.

But how can we do this in a quick and easy-to-apply way?

The 3C approach captures three of the most important variable factors to be considered when delegating: the capacity of the worker/volunteer, and the complexity and criticality of the task. 

The capacity of the worker is the degree to which this person has what it takes to do this job.  Two “big ticket” items in helping you assess this quickly and painlessly are in the answers to the questions:

1. Does this person have the right attitude?
2. How well has he/she done this kind of work before?

The complexity of the task is an estimate of how complicated it is, and its

criticality is a reflection of its importance to the success or failure of your section, corps or organisation.  If it’s done badly, will it have a large or small impact?

  

(A full size version of this diagram is available by clicking on the picture.)

If the task is less critical and less complex, then less engagement is required from the leader than if it is more complex and critical.  And the greater the capacity of the worker, the less leader-engagement is required in terms of instruction, supervision and accountability systems. 

 So, what are the take-home messages from all this? 

1.    It is almost always worth delegating, even if you have to monitor closely,

2.    Delegating is never setting and forgetting.  There is always some degree of follow-up required.

Happy delegating!

Public Speaking – Making it look easy (7)

Gems from around the blogosphere

In this, the final of my series on public speaking, I want to share some gems from around the blogosphere that might provide some interesting reading and help psych you up for becoming an effective public speaker. 

“What Every Entrepreneur Needs to Know About Public Speaking” is a great little starter-pack, written in a semi-humorous style; a good place to start if you want to break yourself in gently. 

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223109

Infobarrel also provide some entry-level hints, somewhat more seriously, with this post:

http://www.infobarrel.com/Successful_Public_Speaking

For a comprehensive range of public presentation skills, you can’t go past Public Speaking International.  They have posts on just about every aspect of public speaking;

http://www.publicspeakinginternational.com/blog/

There is no place in public speaking for egocentricity, and in “The ‘Other-Conscious’ in Public Speaking”  Jim De Piante explains why.

http://blogs.pmi.org/blog/voices_on_project_management/2012/04/the-other-conscious-in-public.html

Speech and presentation leadership coach, communication consultant and author of “Speaking that Connects”, Eileen N. Sinett presents 10 quick tips to help you add polish to your speaking in this post.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7UzZ7Y/humancapitalleague.com/Home/23709

Helium bloggers, Happy Dan, David Dewitt and Daniel Xio Wang, suggests a number of good ideas for the new public speaker to overcome the fear and hatred of speaking.

http://www.helium.com/items/972918-how-to-overcome-the-fear-of-public-speaking

http://www.helium.com/items/1802805-how-to-improve-public-speaking-skills

http://www.helium.com/items/1869437-advice-for-those-who-hate-public-speaking

Finally, for those of you who are ready for a bit of controversy, this next post might whet your appetite.  Kristi Hedges, a former trainer in public speaking, claims that training is a waste of time and money.  She claims that if you buy a book on the subject and practice in front of a webcam, you can get all the training you need.  Is she right?  See what you think.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/04/19/public-speaking-trainer-confesses-dont-waste-your-money-on-this/

Enjoy your reading – and your speaking!

Public Speaking - Making it look easy (6)

Dealing with a hostile audience - Five realities

If I were to ask experienced speakers how many times they had faced a hostile audience, most could count them on the fingers of one hand.  So why is it such a big fear? 

At the end of my last post, I pointed to five realities that run counter to the illusion that fear creates.  Here they are again . . .

1.  The fear is greater than the reality,
2. Most audiences are supportive,
3. Usually the worst that will happen is indifference,
4. When there is hostility it is usually from one or two people only,
5. The techniques for handling hostile audiences are the same as those for handling Q&A’s (more or less).

 (In this post I am not talking about some special situations that are by nature volatile, such as the closure of a service or a workplace, engagement in political activity, or challenging environmental or racial injustice.  These are somewhat special circumstances for which the speaker is usually appropriately briefed, supported and resourced.  In this post I am talking about the kind of occasions you might expect in ordinary corps / centre life.)

In the (unlikely) event of a challenge to what you are saying, here is an approach that has more than a reasonable chance of you coming out of it looking good, having acted with grace and retained the sympathy of the audience. 

1. Validate the person making the challenge (perhaps by thanking him/her for his/her concern about the issue), but not the veracity of the challenge (unless it is right of course).
2. If the statement is fundamental to the argument of your presentation explain in two or three quick points why you believe you are right, validate the challenger again, and carry on with the presentation, all the while being conciliatory in your approach. 
3. If the statement is not fundamental to your presentation, give a statement that asserts your belief in it, but your willingness to review it (after the presentation). Again a conciliatory tone is important.
4. Do not invite any further discussion.
5. Move on.

 You can repeat this for one or two times only, but if it goes beyond this you clearly have a credibility problem looming.  You have to take decisive action in some way.  An experienced speaker may be able to draw on the support of the wider audience without overtly putting down the challenger by gently pointing to the anti-social behaviour of the challenger.    

Don’t buy into an argument – simply challenge the antisocial behaviour

For example, I will politely but clearly challenge the behaviour so gently that it is barely seen as a challenge, perhaps something like this;  “Thanks for your comment.  I see that you disagree with my position - and I'm fine with that.  But rather than take up everyone else’s time, is it OK if you and I have a separate chat about this after the presentation?”

As soon as you do this, you have changed the dynamic in the room.  He begins to be exposed as a person behaving badly, and you are becoming established as a person who cares about everybody in the room. 

It may take another one or two attempts at this, but a rational person will realise that as he persists he is increasingly being perceived as small, petty-minded and ego-centric.  He will back off.  On the other hand, an irrational person might keep going of course, but all the time he will be strengthening your sympathy from the audience (as long as you remain calm and self-possessed), and even those who were against your position will be filled with respect for you as a person. 

Some do’s and don’ts

Do:      Remember that your goal in a skirmish is to act with grace under fire, to keep your head while others are losing their’s, to represent yourself, your organisation and your God in a way that you will have no shame about the next day.  You do not want even one sleepless night with the thought “I wish I hadn’t said . . .xxx” going round your head.

Do:      Step forward toward the challenger (It strengthens your own resolve and sends a message that you are not intimidated).

Do:      Seek to validate the challenger without patronising him.

Do:      Give a reasonable time for the challenger to express his view, but then . . .

Do:      Interrupt the challenger politely and graciously when he is going on too long.

Don’t: Allow the challenger to take over the session.

Don’t: Allow yourself to be forced into agreeing to something you do not believe to be right or inappropriate. 

In my next post, the final of my series on public speaking, I will share some some gems from around the blogosphere that will provide interesting reading and help prepare you to become a highly effective public speaker. 

Public Speaking - Making it look easy (5)

According to statistics more people fear public speaking than fear death.  But, for many people, the most anxiety-provoking elements of public speaking are dealing with a hostile audience and handling a Question and Answer session (Q&A).  Is it really that bad?

Handling Q&A’s – Six Judgement Calls

Presenters get nervous about Q&A’s because they call for snap decisions and quick thinking while trying to look relaxed and composed under pressure.  There appears to be no way of preparing adequately beforehand.  But actually there is. 

Recognising the nature of certain "tension points" that call for judgement during a Q&A is the first step to being in control.  Understanding and managing these points of tension during the preparation phase will empower you to be confident and effective in the delivery. 

These are the six "tension points" or judgement calls that I aim to keep in balance when I handle a Q&A.

Judgement Call #1:  Prime the pump . . . , but don’t keep pumping

Often there is a reluctance in the audience to be the first to ask a question.  After a suitable pause you can get things started yourself.  I will often say something like, “Then let me ask you a question.  Has anyone here come across this problem before?”  The first question is simple and requires no more than a nod of the head.  Usually, there is someone in an audience who will communicate by their non-verbals they are willing to say more.  I follow up with a question that requires something extra, “How did you resolve it?”  Then we're away. 

If, after a reasonable honest attempt, nothing happens; it is time to stop. Sometimes, you just have to come to terms with the fact that everyone is tired and they want to go home.  They are just not as fascinated with your subject as you are. 

In this case, thank everyone for their attention and wrap up the session by underscoring your central statement. 

Judgement Call #2:  Confidence . . . , but not cockiness

When asked a question, you can assert your confidence by physically stepping forward as the question is being asked.  This creates a psychological impact for you and for the audience.  You give yourself the message “I am not going to shrink away from this anxiety-provoking event”, and the audience get the idea that you are confident, in control and ready for anything. 

Present your answers strongly and confidently, but don’t feel you have to have an answer for every question.  If you don’t know the answer, it is OK to say so, usually with a promise to provide that information at a later date. 

Sometimes, audience members will ask you detailed questions that you could not reasonably be expected to remember (about dates, numbers, data, that kind of thing).  My reply usually goes something like.  “That’s a good question.  Off-hand I don’t know exactly how many.  I don’t carry that kind of detail around with me in my head, but I will find out for you.” 

This kind of reply is a plus for your credibility. It indicates you’re a big-picture (strategic) thinker but you are willing to make the effort to provide the small picture stuff. 

Judgement Call #3: Keep it simple . . ., but don’t dumb it down

If you have spent the whole of your presentation being careful to relate to the stereotypical member of your audience (See my first post in this series) the last thing you want to do is to blow it on the Q&A. 

Continue to pitch your comments at the right level for the audience, not getting too technical or long-winded on one hand, nor making it over-simplistic on the other. 

Judgement Call #4:  Stay on message . . . , but it’s not an infomercial

By now you have spent most of your address communicating a message that you believe is important for your audience to hear. 

It is so easy for the Q&A to become a time when that message is lost in an avalanche of other material.  Remember the principle of primacy and immediacy in No 2 of this series? Keep relating your answers back to your central message. 

On the other hand, don’t go overboard to the extent that you resort to the old politician’s trick of always answering with what you want to say regardless of the question.  That’s a sure way to lose the respect of your audience. 

Judgement Call #5:  Impromptu  . . . , but well-prepared

The best preparation for a Q&A is to know your material and have ready answers for the expected questions.  If you’re not sure what questions to expect, use the old journo’s brainstorm technique.  Write down the words who, what, when, why and how and use them as the basis for developing a series of questions and answers that are both quantitative (about numbers) and qualitative (about stories).  Keep in mind your stereotypical audience member as you prepare.  Once you have considered the possibilities, leave it alone. 

Judgement Call #6: Allow freedom of speech . . . , but not too free

In every Q&A there is a guy (they are almost always men – I do not recall it ever being a woman in my experience) who wants to share his own opinion and is not really interested in what others may have to say. He is prepared to go on at length.  

It is good to give him space to express opinions, especially those differing to your own.  It marks you as a person of grace. However, if he goes on too long it is the job of the moderator to politely close him down, but often this does not happen and you may have to take charge. 

I usually handle this with a polite interruption and an appeal to the fairness of giving everyone else time for a question. I try to find something in his comments that I can affirm and always make the promise to share with him one-on-one later.  (He never takes this up by the way – he is only interested in getting an audience.)

Finish strongly

Remember that you are in front of these people because you have a message you believe is important for them to hear.  Applying the principle of primacy and immediacy, finish with a strong statement; something like, “Thank you for your attention today.  Having heard the evidence I am sure you can be in no doubt about the authenticity of Jesus’ message or how it changes lives even now, two thousand years on.”

Dealing with a hostile audience - Five realities

In my next post I will share a few scenarios that they don’t tell you about when you sign up for public speaking courses. 

For now I just want to encourage you to reflect on these five realities:

1. The fear is greater than the reality,
2.  Most audiences are supportive,
3.  Usually the worst that will happen is indifference,
4.  When there is hostility it is usually from one or two people only,
5.  The techniques for handling hostile audiences are the same as those for handling Q&A’s (more or less). 

Public Speaking - Making it look easy (4)

I have heard a lot of boring and ineffective preaching over the years! 

But I have also heard some great preaching.  Nobody sets out to be boring and ineffective, so what is it that makes the difference?  How can you prevent yourself becoming one of those preachers that everyone can’t wait to finish?

In this post, I point the way to just some of the elements that can make preaching real, relevant, and above all effective. 

But what is an effective preach? 

It’s not necessarily one that is entertaining, witty, clever, or theologically sophisticated (though it can have these elements).  It is one in which the preacher accurately portrays God’s message to God’s people in a way they understand, engage with, and which influences them for change.   

For this to happen all the elements of good public speaking should apply (see previous posts) but there is more, number one on the list being your own (the preacher’s) spiritual condition. 

What does God want you to say? 

Your first task as a preacher is to establish what God wants you to say to this congregation at this time.  Of course, you can only do this through prayer in a context of a sound spiritual life.

If you are the regular preacher to the congregation, or even a member of it, you will have a good understanding of its spiritual needs, but what does God want you to present today?  This is a matter of careful thought and prayer.  (This does not preclude the preaching series; the decision is just earlier in the process.)

If you don’t know the congregation, it becomes harder, but a discussion with your host will usually start off your thought processes.  (And, as a visitor, you may have the advantage of being able to issue a more controversial challenge than is always possible in the local setting.)

As part of working out the essential message that God wants to be communicated, seek to be led to a scripture passage.  This will form the basis of your preach. 

What did the author want to communicate?

Generally, the only legitimate way to present scripture is in a way that reflects the author’s original intention.  (When I say author in this case I mean both the human and the God who inspired him.)

To do this we have to have an understanding of the context that the writer lived and wrote in and the context that his readership received it in. 

This is an important integrity issue.  It is the way we can be sure that we do not force our own ideas on what the scripture is saying. 

For example, I once heard a sermon about the comparative qualities of various types of sheep farming methods based on the 23^rd Psalm.  I have no doubt that some farming methods are more sustainable, ethical and humane than others, but it is not the intention of the Psalmist to point that out.  He is celebrating the nurturing nature of God. 

It may sound like a difficult task to work out the context, but in fact there are resources at your disposal that will make it easy.  Here is my four-step suggestion for doing this phase of your preparation in about an hour. 

Step 1:           Check out general background (20 - 30 minutes)

Most Bibles have an introductory few pages at the beginning of each book explaining the background of the book; who wrote it, what was going on for him at the time, who the audience was, the kind of people they were, what was going on for them, the approximate dates.  Simply read this and absorb it. 

Step 2:           Identify what genre (style) of literature this book is (5 - 10 minutes)

A little time in thought should be able to give you the answer to this.  Is it a history book, a letter, a poetry book, an evangel (a biographical book edited in such a way as to persuade the reader – such as the four Gospels and Acts), a book of wisdom, a record of prophecy, etc.?  This is as important because of the assumptions we make about we read are based on our understanding of the genre.  (Would you read an advertisement with the same trust that you read a review of the product?  Would you read a newspaper with the same assumption as you read a novel?  Of course not; you are unconsciously influenced by what you know about the genre.)

Step 3:           Check out what is going on before and after your chosen passage (10- 15 minutes)

Often a quick read of what is before and after the passage will give some insight into the passage itself. About a chapter each way should do it.

Step 4:           Check through your passage looking for things that seem odd in today’s context   (15 - 20 minutes)

Find out why this is. Most likely it is something that was widely understood by the original readership, but does not make sense without explanation today.  For example, if I wrote in a letter to you “The first thing we did when we drove into town was stop to eat at the golden arches”, you would know that I was referring to McDonalds.  In two thousand years’ time, my readership will probably not make the same conclusion.  I have often heard some embarrassing made-up answers to the questions these that these passages though up.  You are better off not addressing the matter than making something up. 

If you carry out these four simple steps, you are more likely to be true to the real intention of God and the writer than if you don’t.  It might not be perfect, but it is a reasonable step in the right direction.  And if you follow this kind of approach by habit you will build up a broader and deeper knowledge of the Bible that will make each preach easier than the previous one, as well as being a blessing to you personally.

An effective preach has an effective “how to”

If we believe that an effective preach is “is one in which the preacher accurately portrays God’s message to God’s people in a way they understand, engage with, and which influences them for change”, then, almost by definition, it must have some explanation of how to make the change.   

Each address should have “how to” part to it, so that every listener is in no doubt about what she/he has to do to apply the principles he/she has just heard. 

The “how to” should be geared to the matter that has been preached, the congregation, and the circumstances of the presentation. 

To use an extreme example, I always preach salvation at a funeral (don’t invite me if you don’t want the gospel preached at your funeral), but it is clearly not appropriate to take over the service with a prolonged call to the mercy seat. Instead I invite attenders to seek out a Salvationist or other spiritual Christian whom they trust, for further discussion, emphasising that it really should be today lest the momentum and opportunity be lost. 

Having worked with addicts and alcoholics for about twenty years I have probably had a higher-than-average number of funerals to conduct, but I do not recall anyone being offended by a clear and definite, but sensitive, “how to”.

A trap to avoid

Before closing, it would be remiss of me not to mention one of the biggest traps that many preachers fall into.  That is treating the Old Testament as though it is a manual of ethics and morality for Christians.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Old Testament serves a number of important purposes.  

• It provides historical and cultural background that culminates in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the establishment of the Church (the worldwide body of Christians, all spiritually interconnected),

•  
It contains a number of books that capture the mythology (truths told in story or history form) of the people (Israel) from whom Jesus came,

• It is a repository for poetry, wisdom literature and prophecy of the centuries leading to Jesus,

• It is the means by which God established that we cannot win a place in heaven by obeying rules or laws, only by the grace and forgiveness of God.
 

The Old Testament contains examples of God’s people behaving in very un-Christian ways on one hand, and it imposes rules that are irrelevant, unrealistic and impractical on the other.

So generally it cannot be used as a moral guidebook for the Christian.  It is inconsistent for this purpose.  (Otherwise, Christians would be required to abstain from Pork and get circumcised, and would be expected to kill foreigners to take over their land!)  Rather it is a means of providing background and input into the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament writers. 

(Almost all the moral and ethical teaching that a Christian will ever need is contained in Jesus’ mega-speech on how to live, recorded in Matthew 5, 6, and 7.)

Preaching is a huge subject, so this post is just a toe-in-the water exercise, but if you’re interested in know more feel free to contact me in English or Chinese at TAW_leadership@taw.salvationarmy.org.  Also you could follow me on Twitter as I will refer to preaching material from time to time.  

In my next post I will cover handling a Q&A session and share some ideas about coping with a hostile audience.