Team-based compensation - Is it the answer?

I guess that depends on what the question is!  Almost invariably one of the first questions that a prospective employee, whether manager or staff, is interested in getting an answer to is "How much will I be paid and how will I be rewarded?"  There is no doubt that other factors come into an employment decision for any individual - what kind of work will I be doing, who will my supervisor be, who else will I be working with, what's the reputation of the work unit, etc.  But all of us have a base interest in what our compensation will be.  And most of us are also interested in knowing how good performance will be rewarded.

Organizations - and leaders - are even more interested in how their compensation systems impact their bottom line profit/cost performance; how the compensation system allows them to attract, retain and motivate staff; and, how a compensation system helps the organization deliver on its key business objectives. 

Historically, most organizations and leaders have operated with a philosophy that individual performance dictates individual reward.  Increasingly, however, a number of shortcomings have been identified with that approach, most notably that it can set up unhealthy competition between staff and between business units - what might be good performance for one area of the organization might negatively impact the ability of others to perform, and might limit the ability of the organization to achieve overall goals and objectives.

Enter team-based compensation.  The idea is that pay or bonuses (or both) become tied to the organization's overall achievements.  The intent is to shift a culture that perhaps encourages a me-focused perspective to one that is focused on team or broader organizational achievement. 

Making such a shift in compensation system is not to be underestimated.  There are at least two fundamental requirements to make that shift successful and there a number of issues to be managed in the transition.

First, a team-based compensation system requires that a well-articulated set of performance goals and metrics be established for the organization.  These could take any number of forms and might include service goals, budget targets, productivity measures, etc.  Regardless of form, they must be well-defined, broadly communicated, and their connection to pay/bonuses well understood.  If this first step is not done, or is done poorly, an effort to implement team-based compensation is unlikely to achieve desired results if not fail completely.  Without this clarity up-front, managers and staff will at best be confused about expectations or at worst may continue to evaluate their compensation/bonus received against the old model of compensation.

Second, and just as critical, is a need to actually evaluate and manage performance against the new team-based model of compensation.  Once announced or implemented, the work for leadership only really begins.  Leaders now really need to step up to the plate to ensure that the new system is implemented, that performance to the overall objectives of the organization becomes paramount, and that compensation/bonuses directly connect to performance.  If that transparency and linkage is absent the system will rapidly lose credibility. 

There are a number of issues that I believe need to be considered and managed in a team-based compensation system.  First, is the amount of the team-based bonus going to be equitable for all levels of the organization, i.e., same percentage opportunity for all or not?  If not, disincentives for performance may be built in to the system right from the start.  Leaders may need to commit to truly being part of the organization in this very visible way as it lends credibility not only to the compensation/bonus system but to a variety of other organizational initiatives and leadership pronouncements.

Second, leaders need to consider how they can incent innovation and creativity from individuals if only team-based performance is going to be rewarded.  If the efforts of one individual or team contributed to a particular organizational success, but all business units get to share in the gain that is ultimately distributed, will similar individual efforts be forthcoming in the future?

Third, and related to the above, how will a team-based compensation system manage those individuals or business units who consistently don't contribute to the achievement of team results?  In this context, it's not usually the really poor performers/business units that present a challenge in management.  Their lack of performance is usually so poor that management (should) become relatively easy.  Of greater concern is a need to motivate everyone to the same high level of motivation and achievement relating to organizational goals.  This is where regular (more than annual) and rigorous performance management comes into play.  This is where strong leadership and commitment are necessary.  If such does not exist then it becomes all too easy for low or average performers to ride on the coattails of high performers with all getting the same team-based bonus.

Finally, there is an equally contrary need to manage excessive or unhealthy peer pressure that may arise from a team-based compensation/bonus structure. There may be very legitimate reasons for an individual/business unit not being able to contribute in a substantive way to achievement of key organizational objectives in a given reporting time frame.  If a team-based culture - supported by a team-based compensation system - is well established, articulated and supported then such issues can be managed easily enough.  This is particularly true if transparency and sharing of issues is part of a well-established organization culture. 

From my perspective the type of compensation system chosen by an organization is important but of less consequence than how it is implemented and managed on an ongoing basis.  For any compensation system to succeed leadership must be there from day one and through its day-to-day management.  There are no simple solutions.  It's About Leadership.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Sustaining Hope - Redux

Late last week I published a blog entry about sustaining hope in a challenging work environment.  It generated it's fair share of commentary - most of it in the form of e-mails directly to me versus commentary directly to the blog.  Much of that feedback related to the positive impact I have had on people throughout my career as a leader.  I was even flattered enough to be compared favourably - if unreasonably - to the Dilbert cartoon, one of my all-time favourites.  Overall, it was clear that this latest entry had hit some nerve. 

Clearly there continue to be a lot of people looking for inspired leadership and believing that a better environment in which to create their potential can be created. 

Interestingly enough, I'm not the leader of these people anymore and, in some cases, never have been. I have no formal leadership role within any organization at the moment.. I've been out of a formal leadership role since February of this year. So why such resonance on this particular topic?

As we talked I was reminded of a recent conversation with my wife. Not surprisingly, she has often served as my leadership sounding board. And not simply because she is my wife. She is also a health care professional and leader in her own right. More importantly we have arrived at particular points of our career via different paths and experiences and sit at different stages of our respective careers. It's these differences in experience and viewpoint that I have most appreciated as I have developed as a leader. She can reaffirm or challenge my perspectives - often times in the same conversation!

In our latest conversation I was lamenting about lost potential. In particular, I was ranting about how great the possibilities were for creating a truly outstanding organization if only we would really tap into and realize the full energy of the people we work with. Unfortunately, too many of organizations seem content to simply compare themselves to some average "benchmark". Or compromises are made along the way for a variety of reasons that might ensure OK results, but not great results. Or worse yet, our leaders themselves fail to live up to their own stated values or the values of the organization. In the meantime, people in our organizations with star potential labour under these constraints and face the consequences of these compromises until they no longer have the energy to make the difference they are capable of. The result - they disengage or leave the organization.

I came back to this theme with my many of my former work colleague.  Many of them are ready and able to give the energy, passion and commitment we want from all of our staff and management.  Their informal leadership and willingness to make a difference in a broader circle of influence has made them more influential than their job descriptions would indicate.  They have taken on - or been given - difficult challenges, managed performance issues, tried to sustain hope, mentored others, and provided inspiration for many beyond their department. In short, they are just the type of leaders we would want to encourage, support and build into new roles for the organization. But while they still believe in the stated vision and values of their particular organizations, they are not convinced that the same level of commitment exists on the part of the broader organization.  They are disillusioned.

For me, some of the fundamental requirements of any leader is to sustain hope, build capacity, and provide inspiration for those they lead. This necessitates an attempt to work towards some higher, shared purpose. If a leader can articulate - and passionately live - this higher, shared purpose, and inspire his/her followers to this goal, and continue to build the individual capacity of each follower to this end the results can be truly amazing. I have had the privilege of working in at least two such organizations at points in their history where we believed in a common vision and worked passionately as a cohesive team to make it happen.

The fact that such a positive state of organizational health and energy can be achieved makes the lack of it all the harder to accept. One might even argue that it's easier to endure a challenging work environment if you've not actually had a good experience to compare it to! But when you have experienced good leadership, a good organizational culture, and seen a commitment to your personal development...well it's tough to deal with the loss of that environment.

So what's advice to my struggling colleagues? Essentially to stay true to their own values and commitments to their staff. From my point of view their leadership compass is pointed in the right direction and they can continue to make a difference in their circle of influence. And they also need to maintain their connection with like-minded individuals. Continue to connect with colleagues who share common values and commitments. Others are feeling equally frustrated and challenged. So continue to support each other and battle the isolation you might otherwise feel. You are not alone.

What of my own personal commitment to my colleagues? Even though I'm no longer part of any formal organization I still remain committed to their personal success and development. I promise to always pick up the phone or answer an e-mail. I promise to be a sounding board when needed.

I can still be a leader.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Courage...or calculation?

Most organizations establish and publish mission, vision and values statements.  For some organizations these act as key communication tools.  They inform the public in general or their clients in particular about what can be expected from the organization, how services will be delivered, what things the organization will do and perhaps what the organization will not do.  In similar fashion, the mission, vision and values of an organization can be key guideposts for employees - here is why we exist, here is where we are headed and here is how we will act in achieving our mission and vision.

Some organizations put extraordinary time, effort and energy into the development of these statements.  The process of creation can take many months and engage all staff and a variety of external stakeholders.  The intent behind such significant efforts is to not simply communicate the organization's mission, vision and values but hopefully to create ownership of these statements particularly by the staff.  If done well, staff become great ambassadors for what the organization states it stands for.  In the best scenarios, staff become empowered to take corrective action to support outstanding service without referral to their immediate supervisor.  Everybody is on the same page, moving in the same direction.  Powerful stuff.

In the same way, individual leaders sometimes take the time to identify and voice their own commitment to a set of personal leadership values.  This is most often the case in senior leadership positions.  It's rare that one achieves such a position without having to articulate a response to the question "What's your leadership style?" or "What's your leadership philosophy?"  Over time, this leadership style, philosophy or set of leadership values is refined by experience and polished by circumstance.  But ultimately, most leaders stake their ground, identify what they stand for, and provide some indication of how they might be different from other leaders.  It's how we sell ourselves to the organization we hope to join.

If an organization has done its job right the recruitment process for a senior leader will ensure that there is a high congruence between the stated values of the organization and the stated values of the individual leader.  The recruitment process should test for this not only by asking a candidate what their leadership values are but should further validate the response by seeking out concrete examples and confirming statements through an objective reference process. 

All this effort is necessary but can it guarantee "success"?  Some leaders are quite articulate in the statement of their leadership values - as are some organizations.  But there are enough examples in the private and public sector to tell us that many a leader and organization can put on a good show before being "discovered" for their true selves.  All too often, when a leader is put to the test it becomes clear that the values that were espoused during the recruitment interview or touted in a public forum, organization website or marketing brochure were simply platitudes. 

In some cases perhaps there was sincerity on the part of the leader when these statements were first uttered.  However, when put to the test, the leader lacked the courage to stay true to their original commitments.  Maybe as time has gone, they have made compromise after compromise believing that each small decision point did not really mean all that much in the context of their overall values.  Perhaps as individual leaders have gotten closer to the end of their careers courage has started to take a back seat to calculations of pensionable service.  In the worst case, perhaps leaders were just saying what they thought people wanted to hear with no real intent on following through in the first place.  The goal was simply to get and keep a leadership position.

So as a current or developing leader, who perhaps like me has become more than a little jaded and cynical about leadership in large organizations, what do you do to keep up your enthusiasm for work and perhaps ensure that your own moral compass remains centred and pointing to your true north?

There are two key pieces of advice I would offer.  First, I suggest we all need to do some self-discovery.  If you have not taken the time in your career to articulate and write down your own personal vision and values then I believe you are going to be much more susceptible to being battered about by the storms of circumstance.  You are very likely to have feelings of anxiety and moral distress but won't be able to pin down the exact source of your frustration.  And I do believe it is critically important to put your work in writing!  We all need that rigour and those physical reminders down the road.  Many years ago, I took the time to develop and put to paper my own personal vision and values.  I've gone back to those statements a few times in my career and done some refining.  Overall though, I've been surprised as to how stable that vision and those values have been over time.  This exercise and the results have helped me focus on what's important for me in my career.  More importantly they have helped me properly position my work within the context of my life.  Each of us needs to be aware of our own personal guideposts.  Only in that way can you determine - for yourself - whether you are able to continue working for a particular organization. 

Second, when I've been in situations where my own personal values didn't mesh with that of the organization I worked with - but I had no other immediate options available to me - I tried to be true to myself and my leadership commitments by focusing on what I could control.  Certainly, I made efforts to influence my organization in a direction that I felt was appropriate to our stated values.  However, when I didn't get as much traction as I would have liked in that regard, I focused my attention on practicing my leadership values within my own sphere of influence.  Working from my own personal vision and values, I continued to work to be transparent with my direct reports and my portfolio, I continued to develop an environment in which open discussion and vigorous debate were encouraged, and I continued to work to coach and develop my staff.  Overall, I tried to treat them with the same level of respect that I would want for myself.  Overall, I tried to remain true to my stated vision and values.  You owe yourself and your staff no less.

There is no doubt that every day presents us with challenging circumstances and choices.  As a leader you are called upon to act with both courage and calculation in making decisions.  I encourage you to make the best choice possible based on a calculation of what keeps you most aligned with your values.  Have the courage to live your values.  Put your values into action and you will make a real difference - and likely be happier in your day-to-day work life too!
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.
 

Ironman as a Metaphor for Leadership

A bit of different twist for this blog entry.  My first crossover blog!  I've been running another blog focused on the trials and tribulations of preparing for, competing in, and recovering from Ironman Canada.  I've done two of these events - in 2010 and 2011 - and competed in a few other half-Ironman events and a few more run competitions. 

Through much of 2011 and into 2012 I had the privilege of working with an executive coach.  Russell Hunter, National Director at Human Performance Institute of Canada Inc, was my coach and helped lead me through some challenging times and a major transition in my career (http://ca.linkedin.com/in/russellhunter). Aside from all the skills and talents you would expect to see in an executive coach, Russell brought another dimension to our conversations - he is an accomplished triathlete and has competed at Ironman Canada.  This shared experience allowed us to make many comparisons to my work environment and Ironman.  It allowed me to put into perspective aspects of my work that I did control and those that I did not.  With the 2012 version of Ironman Canada set to go this coming weekend (August 26) I thought I would share with you some of the analogies we drew between Ironman and Leadership - and throw in a few more that grew from that conversation.

First, there has to be some motivation or goal in mind to undertake an Ironman event - as there must be in taking on a leadership role.  As "they" say , without a goal any direction will do! Ironman is a daunting undertaking - 3.8 km swim, followed by 180 km on the bike, followed by a 42 km marathon.  As I'm sure most amateur athletes would attest to there are not a lot of accolades that come with doing this event.  You certainly get cheers along the way from family and friends, and sometimes from complete strangers.  And you do get a finisher's medal at the end of the race.  Otherwise it's a lot of hard slogging through the three disciplines and sometimes a lot of talking to yourself as you try to reach the finish line.  You are in the race in some cases just to say you did it, to prove to yourself that you are capable.  And most of us in leadership roles would agree that recognition is outweighed by ongoing challenges and it's often a lonely journey we take on.

Second, for best results in an Ironman, you spend a significant amount of time in training and preparing for the race.  No different than getting ready to take on a leadership role.  For Ironman, you can find yourself starting to prep as early as a few weeks after the last race for the next race!  Granted your training isn't as intense at this point. Rather, you are now trying to maintain your level of fitness, work on improving or sustaining technique, improving core strength and (if you are like me) perhaps looking to shed a few more pounds.  Entering race day - or starting a leadership position - without any form of preparation is a high risk proposition to say the least!  For most of us - including the professionals - success does not come without months of preparation.  Others may spend years getting ready for the ultimate event, building up confidence to take up the challenge by doing shorter distance triathlons.  In much the same way, successful leaders prepare themselves academically, take on smaller challenges, and ultimately work up to larger leadership roles.

Triathlon is a multi-discipline sport.  So is leadership.  However, if we think of triathlon as swimming, cycling and running we would miss out on other equally important components.  A critical part of training and race day preparation is making sure your nutrition and hydration is race ready.  Throughout the year leading up to Ironman you use training days and smaller events to figure out what works for you and will keep you fueled for the race - what will your body tolerate? what amount do you need to sustain race pace? what kind of electrolyte replacement do you need? do you need to use salt replacement? how will that change depending on weather conditions?  So what's the leadership analogy for nutrition?  My take on that is all leaders need to continue to fuel their minds through continuous education and learning.  You can't continue to make positive impact if you don't continue to hone and advance your skill set.  There is too much change too fast in our health care environment - labour force dynamics, regulations, government direction - to stand pat with existing learning.  Leaders must continue to fuel their minds.

Success in Ironman also requires that your equipment - wetsuit, bike, shoes, watch - is race ready.  This means making decisions early on as to whether you want to take on the race with a road bike or a tri-bike, whether you want to go with base components for your bike or invest in top-of-the line products, what type of running shoes work for you and so on.  You'll also find that your training and smaller races will take their toll on your equipment.  At points in time you will have to replace your shoes as you put on the miles, that you will need to replace your tires and otherwise tune your equipment in the hopes of not having a breakdown on race day.  In much the same way, as a leader, you have to make the appropriate investments in equipment and tools to undertake your leadership task - do you have the right measurement systems in place, the right tools to effectively communicate with your stakeholders, the right mechanisms to ensure that your work group or organization is aligned towards the achievement of a common goal.  Your experience will cause you to change your tool set as you work towards your goal.

I can't do justice to the comparison between Ironman and Leadership if I don't discuss mental preparation and hardening.  You can have everything in place mentioned above - training in several disciplines, fueling plan nailed, equipment ready - but if you are not mentally prepared for race day all of the prep work might be for naught.  In this way, "failure" during training or in a shorter race may become the best guarantee of future success at Ironman.  If you don't face adversity, large or small prior to Ironman - flat tire, slipped bike chain, bad weather - you likely won't know how to react when something like that happens on race day.  And you don't want to be doing all your learning on race day!  It's no different with leadership.  The best leaders have faced their share of adversity on their way up to their current roles; they've experienced conflict, they've had to make tough choices, they've had to balance multiple priorities and tasks, and they have sometimes failed.  However, that's what has (hopefully) molded them into better leaders.

Then it's race day.  All your preparation has led to this moment.  Last year at Ironman Canada that meant nearly 3,000 people entering the water at the same time.  Each one with their own anxieties, skill level, and goals.  Some were rookies.  Some had done this more than a dozen times.  Regardless, for the next nine, ten, twelve or even seventeen hours you effectively begin to race on your own, trying to beat the clock.  At this point there is no guarantee as to how the day will go.  You may have expectations but once you start the race you surrender yourself to the events of the day.  Weather can be a factor. In 2010 I got hailed on part way through the bike ride and the temperature dipped to 10 degrees Celsius.  In 2011, the temperature hit a peak of around 40 degrees Celsius.  Same course - different conditions.  In 2011, I got slugged in the face and developed a cramp in my leg half-way through the swim.  Early in the bike course somebody had thrown tacks on the road.  I got through while others had to deal with replacing a punctured tube.  I saw someone else with a broken bike chain.  You can't predict what will happen.  No different in our leadership roles.  Your day day can be exquisitely planned out and then you get that one call and your day is radically altered.  As a leader you must be prepared to respond and adjust to the events of the day.

At some point the day does end!  While I did better in 2011 than I did in 2010, I still believe I have more in me.  I have a desire to achieve what I believe my body is capable of.  As in leadership, there is a need for a post-event evaluation.  What worked?  What didn't?  What would I change?  In Ironman you have a small number of well-established metrics that help you to objectively evaluate your performance - heart rate, pace, swim time, bike time, run time, transition times, and finish time.  There are also subjective evaluations at play and most of them relate to how did I feel during different parts of the race and after the race.  Was my stomach working ok?  How well did my body hold up to the pounding?  What does all of that mean in preparation for next year?  In the same way, leaders have to conduct ongoing evaluation of their efforts by whatever means available so as to ensure a greater degree of success in future endeavours.

While I have described Ironman as a solo event it is anything but.  Most competitors have been introduced to triathlon through other people.  We don't just miraculously decide to take on triathlon without having someone initiate us or inspire us to take on the challenge.  Many of us are also part of teams that we train with and learn from.  Good leadership is also a function of working with and learning from a team.  This includes subordinates, peers and mentors.  We shorten our learning curve and mitigate the risk of failure by learning from others and leaning on their experience and knowledge. 

Finally, as I hope all leaders and triathletes would attest to, none of us truly succeeds or reaches our full potential without the support of our families.  Training for an Ironman can often take up to and over 20 hours of time each week as we get to our peak preparation.  This means many early mornings, evenings or weekends away from family.  It means adjusting family plans to allow for participation in lead up races and Ironman itself.  It means financial investment in equipment.  Same holds true for most leadership positions.  Early morning meetings, late evening meetings, planning forums that take place out-of-town, conferences and crisis events all take time away from family.  In addition, as leaders we all experience varying levels of stress, trials and tribulations in the course of our careers.  We have to make decisions about when to upgrade our education.  We have to make decisions on when to make a change in career.  Are we prepared to move to another city or province to pursue a career opportunity.  None of this can be a solo decision and our success is in no small measure attributable to our families. 

Ironman and Leadership - more than a few lessons to be learned.  Keep training and enjoy the race!
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Dark Clouds - Part II

If you've been paying attention to the news in Alberta in the past week, the temperature has only been ramping up on the expense scandal involving a former executive at Alberta Health Services (AHS).  Opposition politicians have been panning government and AHS responses to date (somewhat predictably) and have been calling for the resignation or termination of the current Minister of Health (again somewhat predictably).  AHS, no doubt supported by the government, has also stated that it will not be paying a severance package to the executive at the heart of the scandal.  I'm not sure how that will stand up in a court of law if the situation goes that direction, but perhaps it is only intended to be a symbolic gesture anyway.

The government has now directed one of its associate ministers to tighten up expense policies, identify ways to improve transparency to the public on expenses incurred by politicians and senior officials, and to review hiring processes for senior officials.  These might be the right things to do and may send a message to the public that matters are being taken seriously but unfortunately at this point it may just equate to closing the barn door after the horses have already bolted.  And for those of us horses that remain it sounds as though we might just get whipped harder even if we were well behaved.

Regrettably, the one thing that hasn't seemed to enter much into the public discussion in any meaningful way is around the existence, application or enforcement of professional codes of ethics or conduct.  I believe this is far less an issue of inadequate controls and guidelines for approving expenses.  At the core it is really about professional behaviour.  There is no doubt that there has been some discussion on the periphery of the issue and perhaps this forms the base for our visceral reaction to the story - we are scandalized because the circumstances seemingly affront some shared set of values we as a society share about what is right and what is wrong.  But there really hasn't been much depth to that part of the discussion.

I am a health care professional.  I place a fair bit of pride in that designation despite the black mark that recent events have given to administrative leaders.  I am currently a member of two health care professional bodies - the Canadian College of Health Leaders (CCHL) and the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE).  I have been a member of both for several years.  I have served with the local chapter of CCHL as an executive on a couple of occasions.  I have also certified as a Fellow in the ACHE.  In the coming months I expect to become a certified management consultant and in the next year or two perhaps a certified executive coach.  All of these professional organizations have a code of ethics or a code of conduct which, as members, we undertake to uphold and advance. 

One phrase of the ACHE Code of Ethics stood out for me in light of the current controversy - "Healthcare executives have an obligation to act in ways that will merit the trust, confidence, and respect of healthcare professionals and the general public.  Therefore, healthcare executives should lead lives that embody an exemplary system of values and ethics." 

Reasonably powerful words.  Performing to this level of expectation is not just about working with an existing system of policies, procedures and regulations.  If I'm to achieve the level of performance suggested by ACHE (and other professional bodies) it seems to me that I should be striving for more than just the bare minimum acceptable behavior.  I have to undertake some significant work, introspection, and self-management to achieve this lofty goal.

I suspect that there will be more revelations in the days and weeks to come on this issue.  I hope, however, that this will be my last blog entry on the matter.  In that regard, I'm trying to live by an adage which I paraphrase here - those of us who have not sinned should cast the first stone.  I can't say that I am perfect and I'm sure that many of those casting stones have a few faults as well.

So while appropriate action should be taken as circumstances dictate, I hope that we as health care professionals can use this as an opportunity to proactively advance and support our professional code of ethics.  They cannot simply be statements posted on the wall or accessed through a website or handed out on the first day of orientation never to be seen or discussed again.  I believe we need to make much more practical use of these codes in our day-to-day work - using them to recruit management personnel, making them significant conditions of employment, effectively using them to evaluate managers and reward (or not) their performance.  Only by doing these types of things on an ongoing basis do I believe that we will have a chance at reinforcing positive behaviour.

Ultimately, as leaders we must demonstrate the behaviours called for by our professional code of ethics.  People are watching.  What they learn depends on us.

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.



Dark Clouds

It was a dismal time to be a health leader this past week with no shortage of controversy or outrage in Alberta.  For those of you not familiar with the story and/or living outside of my province here are a couple of links to get you up to speed:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/08/01/edmonton-alberta-health-services-merali.html

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/08/02/edmonton-weatherill-resigns-merali.html. 

In this case truth is stranger than fiction.  Who could conceive of such a storyline?  I've heard a lot of feedback so far from John Q Public about how could this happen?  This feeling is mixed in with real anger that severance packages for this latest round of departures from Alberta Health Services (AHS) could even be possible, along with vain hopes that these expenses could be repaid by the people implicated in the scandal.  Unfortunately, I see more bad than good coming out of this story, at least in the short term.  There is some grim satisfaction for members of the public watching the departure of key players from their roles with AHS.  However, I don't for a minute believe that there will be any recovery of the expenses paid out between 2005 and 2008.  I don't for a minute believe that this was an isolated set of circumstances relating to one senior executive in one former health authority.  I don't for a minute believe that there won't be another severance package due in the current circumstances - I doubt that AHS has any legal basis upon which they could deny such. 

I WANT TO believe that since the creation of AHS and under current leadership that this type of behaviour is not still going on.  AHS has made a commitment to be transparent about its current leadership expenses and the Office of the Auditor General is conducting further investigations as well.  Moreover, the Minister of Health has expressed an intent to not only find out how such expenses could be approved and paid out, but also indicated a commitment to determine how these issues could have been missed in a hiring process for an AHS senior executive.

I do want to give credit to the Minister of Health and AHS for taking immediate action when these issues came to light.  Timely and appropriate action was taken.  The right message has been sent. 

There is a lot of collateral damage coming out of this situation.  Health care leadership has been given another black eye.  Other health care leaders have been tainted with the same brush regardless of the fact that most of us don't go out for expensive dinners on the public dime, do not have luxury vehicles whose repairs we bill to our employer, nor have we received millions of dollars in payouts.  Most health leaders are hard-working, committed professionals who make every effort to try to improve and manage the health system for the benefit of the patients, residents and clients receiving care.  Under the best of circumstances in our health care system, however, administration and "back office" personnel are often the first and easiest targets for attack and cost-cutting initiatives.  Regrettably, events of the past week do much to feed this view and diminish any value the public might attach to leadership ethics, integrity and competence. 

There is much real work to do in improving health care.  Unfortunately, events of the past week will only detract from the focus needed to get things done.  In the days and weeks to come much time and effort will be spent on writing policies, revising procedures and putting other measures in place to try to prevent things like this from happening again.  While some form of punishment has been meted out to those implicated in this situation all health leaders bear the weight of this transgression.  Next week our health leaders will try to regain focus and move on.  It won't be easy.  Our credibility has taken another hit.

This is also a time of opportunity for health leaders.  We can use this event and others like them to strengthen our professional codes of conduct, enforce better behavioural norms on each other, and raise the bar for health leadership.  It's clear that the alternatives to self-management are far less attractive.

In the short term the actions of a few have made the work of those left behind immeasurably more difficult. 
  ______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Health Care - From Good to Great?

I started writing this particular blog entry while waiting in the Denver International Airport for my flight home to Edmonton.  I had just completed class work for my LEAN certification with BMGI.  The time away from home allowed me to gain valuable training to complement my experience with LEAN implementation.  It also afforded me the opportunity to attend to other matters and interests - like re-reading books and synthesizing the learning into something relevant for myself and my consulting practice.

One author, researcher and speaker that I have thoroughly enjoyed and whose work has really resonated with me over the years is Jim Collins. It's amazing to think that Built to Last was first published in 1994 - almost 20 years ago.  Since then Collins has gone on to release well-researched and thoughtful studies on organizations and published those findings in Good to Great, Good to Great and the Social Sectors, How the Mighty Fall, and Great by Choice.  There are many results and lessons worthy of comment, but given the nature of my blog I want to focus on Collins' concept of Level 5 Leadership.  Collins started to build the base for this concept in Built to Last but articulated it more coherently and forcefully in Good to Great.

As Collins attests to in Good to Great he was initially highly resistant to recognizing and identifying leadership as a distinguishing factor between good and great companies.  He believed that the perspective put forth by his research team in the initial phases of their research leading to a conclusion that leadership distinguished good from great companies was too easy an answer.  He was concerned that he and his team not fall into a trap of just crediting the leader or blaming the leader with company success or failure.  He wanted his team to dig deeper to achieve a better understanding of key differences between the comparison companies.  Eventually, however, he was persuaded by the data his research team collected.  There was a difference in the style of leadership between the good-to-great and the comparison companies. 

Ultimately Collins and his team established a hierarchy of leadership which is represented here in simplified graphical form.  As you view this hierarchy, consider where you as a leader fit in and/or where those around you fit in.  In addition, start to consider what we hope for in leadership for our health care system today and what style of leadership we believe will truly transform our system to better meet the challenges we face.

Collins and his team were surprised to discover that the leaders of the good-to-great companies were not anything at all like what one would have expected from popular portrayal.  These leaders were not larger-than-life, bombastic, or constantly in search of the spotlight.  Rather, Collins and his team found the good-to-great leaders to be "...self-effacing individuals who displayed the fierce resolve to do whatever needed to be done to make the company great." (italics represent my emphasis).  The research team observed that the Level 5 Leaders possessed a blend of extreme personal humility and intense professional will.  Collins was at pains to assure us that it wasn't that Level 5 Leaders didn't have egos or self-interest.  They were incredibly ambitious leaders but channeled that ambition towards the creation of a great - and sustained - company, and not towards personal gain.

Collins and his team identified some extraordinary examples of Level 5 Leaders in action - one CEO giving up $5 million of a $20 million retirement package that he was contractually entitled to (and not due to any organizational or public pressure to do so); CEO's unwilling to take credit for organizational success and deferring to team accomplishment instead; CEO's determined and focused on developing the next generation of leaders and their personal successor(s) so that they could step aside and ensure the success of the company beyond their tenure.  In contrast, comparison company CEO's were identified as being very much larger than life, possessed of tremendous drive tied to personal success or gain, able to achieve great success for the company in the short-term, but not able to sustain those gains or successes past their particular tenure. Nor were such leaders particularly interested in developing their successors - they needed to be the unquestioned "big dog". 

Equally interesting, Collins' team found no support for the idea that a company had to recruit from the outside in order to move it from good to great status.  In fact, the evidence collected pointed in the opposite direction - there was a negative correlation in any sustained transformation from good to great.  Those leaders who were "raised" from inside the organization were more committed to the long-term values of the organization and were ultimately the most passionate about the long-term success of the organization even at the expense of their own personal gain or recognition.  In both Built to Last and Good to Great there was strong empirical support for growing leaders from within the company and ensuring continuity of quality leadership. Contrast that recommendation with the reality of constant turnover in too many of our organizations.

Finally, Collins identified Level 5 Leaders as having a markedly different perspective on success and failure - personally and organizationally.  He described this as the window and the mirror.  Collins and his team consistently saw Level 5 Leaders attribute success of the organization to factors other than themselves and in particular often credited their teams with achievements of the company.  By contrast, they were quick to take responsibility for the lack of success and identify learning opportunities to guide future efforts.  They did not blame others or circumstances for that failure.  Comparison company leaders displayed mirror opposite behaviours - quick to take personal credit and apportion blame away as required to maintain personal standing. 

As readers of my blog will likely already know from my entries, I am quite biased in favour of the conclusions reached by Collins and his research team.  I aspire to be a Level 5 Leader and most certainly hope to work with Level 5 Leaders as part of any team.  One of the conundrums that Collins leaves his readers with is why we see so few Level 5 Leaders at the head of companies.  Collins' take on this reality in the business world is that personal ambition often drives people to positions of power but it is this same ambition that stands at odds with the humility required for Level 5 Leadership and long-term success (and transformation) of an organization.  He further suggests that boards of directors compound this situation by looking for, recruiting and rewarding larger-than-life leaders to move their organizations from good to great.  Long-term success and a movement from good to great requires a change in the processes by which leaders are recruited, selected and sustained - and there has to be a commitment to a long-term agenda with stability for the leadership group.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on Level 5 Leadership and its application to health care or in general.  I want to learn from you and I hope a conversation will help all of us advance our organizations to greater success and each of us to greater personal satisfaction.  Thanks again for reading.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Leaders need...Leaders!

Initially, my thought was to title this blog entry as "Good Leaders Need Good Followers", but my view and experience is that the most valuable people you can ever have working for you are the ones that demonstrate the highest levels of competence and motivation, the ones that are constantly solving problems, the ones that are always multi-tasking, and that are setting the example for others in the work environment.  In short, they are leaders and fulfill that role both formally and informally in an organization.  Their impact goes well beyond their immediate areas of accountability.  In military terms they are a force multiplier!!  You wish you could clone them!  In contrast, follower just seemed to be too passive a term for the type of relationship and work environment I believe best serves an organization and its clients.  We need more "leaders" and less "followers".  Unfortunately, not everyone sees it the same way I do.

A reader of my blog recently reinforced the reality of a contrary perspective on the quality of leadership we experience, or hope for, by noting that "...there is no shortage of self-centred, narcissistic, aggressively driven people in leadership positions..." and we often times go to extraordinary lengths and efforts to work around them and get the job done.  A pretty harsh assessment on the current state of leadership!  In a similar vein, another former colleague of mine once gave an aspiring manager this bit of back-handed career advice - "Surround yourself with good people".  The manager on the receiving end of this advice may or may not have understood the underlying meaning of this statement and the commentary on their leadership it was intended to convey... 

So why does a cartoon like Dilbert have such resonance for so many of us?  Well, clearly we've all been there at one point or another in our careers.  And often the reality of the pointy-headed boss has been too much the norm of our career rather than the exception.  In the times when we've had the experience of a truly inspirational and inspiring leader its been like a breath of fresh air!  In many ways, our organizational cultures and systems foster a style of leadership that is counterproductive to truly getting the best out of our organizations.  Large, bureaucratic organizations often value (consciously or unconsciously) conformity, caution, adherence to rules, and a deference to authority and the chain of command.  Taken to extreme, leaders who "succeed" in these environments are often politically skilled, controlling, effectively manage upward, and are too often focused on achieving their personal goals whether that be a performance bonus or, in some cases, mere survival.  They are certainly not the most effective leaders particularly as defined by their followers.

I don't believe it has to be this way.  We can do better. Clearly, however, we need governing boards and leaders at all levels of our organizations to buy into a different philosophy of leadership, a philosophy that is engaging and empowering, one that does foster teamwork and team achievements, and one that taps the full potential of all staff.  And there are real life examples of leaders who work in this fashion.  Most of us, including myself, have had some experience of them.  To make my point on this, however, I'm going to revert to a fictional leader to illustrate some of the key characteristics of what a Leader can be and how they also develop, and need, other Leaders to achieve success.

Jean-Luc Picard.  Captain of the Enterprise.  A strong, confident and imposing leader.  An individual trained to command.  Probably not a character that we would immediately connect with terms like "engaging" or "empowering".  But consider the organization that he leads - a crew of over 1,000 highly trained professionals - very much like a health care organization of today.  And this crew is also a highly diverse group.  The most visible example of this diversity is represented by characters such as the Klingon security officer, Worf, and the android second officer, Data.  But there is an even greater diversity within the command structure and strength of personality when we take full account of all of the main characters - Riker, Counsellor Troi, Dr. Crusher, Geordi LaForge, etc.  All of them are very accomplished professionals, highly trained, passionate, committed, and strong-willed.  They are all Leaders. 

There is no doubt as to who is in charge - Picard.  But Picard does not simply exert that authority and enforce his will to achieve mission success.  He relies heavily on his team of Leaders.  He frequently consults with one or more of them, appreciating that the diversity of their training and experience will result in better decisions and outcomes.  This seeking out of input is not mere formality.  Picard uses this input to formulate a strategy or make a decision and is open to changing his perspective based on the information provided to him by his team of Leaders. 

The process by which input and feedback is gained can often see Picard's senior commanders at odds with each other, presenting contrary points of view in a very "vigorous fashion".  They are Leaders after all.  Picard does not stifle this exchange of ideas and perspectives.  Other less confident leaders might easily see this "debate" as a conflict to be managed, de-escalated, diffused and taken off line.  Picard may moderate some of the discussion, making sure it does not become too personal, but he sees the value in strong discussion of a situation and the value of looking for solutions from all possible angles.  Ultimately, his approach builds and enhances trust between and with his senior officers.  They do not question their commitment to each other and their mission.  And they feel heard and respected for their skills and abilities.

Picard is also very engaging with his senior officers.  He is quick to praise the achievements of his personnel, both publicly and in private.  Whatever form it takes, the recognition is individualized and in a form that has real meaning to the officer receiving the praise.  In addition, the recognition is not done according to some pre-established schedule; it is done as and when something of significance has been achieved.  Picard doesn't set a reminder in his calendar like "Say something nice about Riker today".  Rather, the recognition is relevant, specific, timely and - because it is genuine and comes only when truly earned - is highly valued by the recipient.

In a previous blog I focused on mentoring.  Despite Picard's rather imposing persona, professional demeanour, and perceived detachment or coolness, he is quite invested in supporting and developing his team.  He is actively engaged in developing and enhancing the skills of his team, he continuously challenges them to grow and develop their skill set and their leadership potential - even when, or particularly when, they may not even know it is a skill they need to develop.  There is no doubt that there is benefit to Picard and his command if his senior officers become more skilled - it makes his job easier and gains him recognition from his superiors.  However, Picard takes a more altruistic and unselfish view in this regard.  He sees the opportunity not from the perspective of how their development can benefit his success.  Rather, he sees the opportunities for his subordinates and actively supports their growth even if he runs the risk of losing them to another opportunity outside of the Enterprise. 

Finally, keeping to the theme of Leaders Need Leaders, Picard himself possesses the humility to accept mentorship from his subordinates.  He accepts guidance, support and even a healthy dose of chastisement from various members of his senior leadership team without resentment.  He may not like being reminded of his weaknesses or foibles, but he also understands the sentiment behind his team's efforts.  More importantly he recognizes the need for continuous improvement in his skill set and relishes the journey of learning and self-discovery.  And sometimes we need that extra help from outside of us to identify and work on our flaws.  So rather than silence our "critics" we should embrace and thank them for their support.  Because Leaders need Leaders too.
  ______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

What Price for Leadership?

Cheap shot.  Defined as an unsportsmanlike act.  Or as unnecessarily aggressive and unfair remark directed at a defenseless person.  Other words that can be used in place of the term "cheap shot" are jibe, barb, dig, slam or shot.

As a former (very) recreational hockey player, I've seen and experienced my share of cheap shots on the ice.  These types of actions are border line and might or might not result in a penalty being called.  They are below the belt and can look like a face wash, an extra push in front of the net, a little whack with the stick on some body part of the opposing player.  You come to accept some of this as part of the game.  You also make a choice as to whether to respond in kind.

As a former health care administrator I unfortunately have to profess to have been subjected to my fair share of what can be characterized as cheap shots in that forum as well.  The difference between the hockey reference and the administrative experience is that on almost all occasions there is no ability for an administrator to defend themselves.  Most times we either self-restrain or are restrained from responding in the interests of professionalism or maintaining good relations with one or more set of stakeholders.

So it was with more than passing interest that I've noted a number of media stories of late that I would characterize as taking cheap shots at senior managers, civil servants and administrative functions in general. 

First off the mark was the story about Alberta Health Services senior executives getting bonuses, or pay-at-risk payments, totalling $480,000.  Naturally, this made headlines in media outlets across Alberta and engendered some interesting comments from opposition politicians, journalists, and union leaders.  Wildrose Health Critic Heather Forsyth was quoted as saying "This is incredible...that they even have the guts to give themselves a bonus when they haven't met their targets." and "What kind of message does that send to the people in the front lines, the ones who are really doing the work?  It's cocky and flippant and arrogant and unacceptable."  (italics are my emphasis).  As harsh as those statements were it was nothing compared to the editorial put out by Don Braid of the Calgary Herald.  Some of this commentary went as follows:  "Your boss sets your performance target for next week.  There is extra pay for meeting it.  But you decide, hey, the weather's nice, I'll play some golf, work at half speed for a day or two.  You achieve only 50 per cent of your target.  And you get 50 per cent of the bonus, along with congratulations for half a job well done." 

Could AHS have handled the whole bonus/pay-at-risk situation better?  Probably. It's a system that is not well understood by almost anybody.  However, are Dr. Chris Eagle and other members of the senior leadership team of AHS overpaid?  Not in my estimation.  In fact, I consider Dr. Eagle and his executive colleagues to be grossly underpaid for what they are accountable for, for the level of scrutiny they are subject to, and the fact that they are pretty much working or on-call 24/7.  The comment about working at half speed for a day or two is extraordinarily laughable and speaks to the lack of information and insight on the part of the speaker.

Similar stories played out in the next few weeks.  There was sharp criticism over increases in administration costs at Alberta Health Services.  NDP MLA David Eggen (former Friends of Medicare executive director) was quoted as saying, "There's been a lingering perception that AHS is top-heavy and this does nothing to dispel that perception."  This was despite the fact that some of what made up the increase in administration costs related to such things as investments in infection control.  Unfortunately, accounting rules that AHS is subject to cause many of these types of expenses to be categorized as administrative.  Not the typical definition that most of the public and media would work by.  Rather they tend to think of administration costs as being those senior executive types that work at half speed and play golf when the weather is nice...

Next up for criticism was a pay increase for provincial civil servants.  Premier Redford approved an order-in-council that provided 4 per cent increases for senior civil servants.  Wages for these leadership roles had been frozen since 2009.  The reaction was not unexpected.  Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith was quoted as saying "Oh my gosh, you've got to be kidding me, in the middle of a budget crisis...I think it's not going to pass muster from the public,"  Scott Hennig of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was similarly critical, implying that the positions were already well paid (if not overpaid) saying "The raise is not going to be the difference between whether they are eating cat food this month or not." 

On the bright side at least, Health Minister Fred Horne and AHS Board Chair Catherine Roozen came to the defense of various administrative leaders and their salaries as was appropriate.  Too often that type of leadership is absent in these situations and the easier, more political thing to do is freeze (or even cut) wages, suggest that some sort of investigation and corrective action will take place, and take whatever other action might be necessary to demonstrate "public accountability"

The reality is that there is a "price" that must be paid for leadership.  That price must be commensurate with the responsibility and accountability placed on these positions, and the education and experience we expect of individuals holding these positions.  These are not private sector roles to be sure, where customers and shareholders will ultimately weigh in on the appropriateness of executive salaries (although that equation has fallen apart on more than one occasion of late...).  And I'm not suggesting that public health care match private sector positions in salary and benefits.  However, if we want to recruit and retain good to excellent leaders we must appeal to more than just their altruistic nature.  Similarly, we create significant risk for our health system without investing in "administrative functions" like finance, human resources, infection control, materials management, information systems, and a host of others who are required for the safe and effective operation of a multi-billion dollar operation like Alberta Health Services.  Without an appropriate investment in these skilled people, doctors and nurses and other clinical professionals will not have the ability to provide you and I with high quality, safe care when we need it.  The Canadian health care system has always underfunded these requirements. 

Politicians, reporters, interest groups and the public should do more to inform themselves on what exactly are administrative costs and what we require of our leaders.  Cheap shots, while they might help somebody score some points in the short term, or sell some papers, or give us a sense of victory over some faceless bureaucrat or public figure - who can't defend themselves by the way - will only devalue a critical piece of our health system and demoralize those trying to help make our health system function at a higher level.  We should be concerned about not only creating a better working environment for doctors and nurses but for everyone associated with our health system.  We need the next generation to prepare for and take on leadership roles as very many of our current leaders retire in the next number of years.  And at this point, there is little incentive for people to aspire to positions of leadership in health care.  The pay is not exorbitant, the workload and demands are excessive, and the expectations and timelines are unrealistic.

Ultimately we need to place as much value on leadership for health care as we do on education and training for clinical professionals, as much as we do on the bricks and mortars of hospitals and continuing care facilities, and on investment in the latest medical technology.  If we don't, the success of our health care system will be constrained by this deficiency to the same extent as if we failed to build enough capacity in our system to deal with population demand.  It is about leadership.

  ______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.



Mentorship - A Leadership Imperative

Mentor - A wise and trusted counselor; a teacher; an adviser; a master; a guide. 

As I contemplated this latest blog entry, these were some of the terms that popped up in my thought process.  There were certainly some images that came to my mind as well.  Some of those images relate to personal experiences in my career and people who I knew then, or appreciate now, as being mentors to me.  There are also of course some more fantastical representations of mentors that my geek mentality can relate to. 

Like Yoda.

The image of Yoda being carried by Luke Skywalker definitely conveys some particular aspects of mentorship.  Someone looking over your shoulder, acting as a guide, pushing you forward and beyond your self-imposed limits.  At times Yoda's perspective could be quite demanding - "No!  Try not. Do, or do not.  There is no try."  A seemingly harsh perspective, but this approach did move his mentee to a new level of performance. 

I've become much more interested in mentorship in the past couple of months as I've made the transition out of a senior leadership position into the role of management consultant.  Perhaps this should come as no surprise when one considers this is the biggest career transition I've made to date.  But there's more to the story.  The transition made me realize the lack of mentoring I had experienced over the past few years.  It's not that I was unaware of that lack of support.  I felt the absence of a mentor and took a conscious step to enlist one outside of my own organization.  However, it has only been as I've started this new venture that I've more fully appreciated the value that a mentor can bring to my career and life - even for someone who has been in the working world for the past 25 years.

Right now, I count myself particularly fortunate to have two senior level professionals who have stepped up to the plate to guide me through this transition.  In both cases, there was no formal mentorship kick-off meeting, no mutually agreed-upon goal setting process, no established timeline or agreement on frequency of meetings.  I've known these senior level professionals for different periods of time - one for over 15 years, the other for only three.  They have very different backgrounds and experiences.  They are different in a multitude of ways. I don't believe they have ever met or even heard of each other.  They do, however, share at least one thing in common - they both appear to have an interest in my success and development.

So, I'm going to start at that point in describing what I think makes a successful mentoring relationship.  First, I really believe that it is my professional obligation to be a mentor to others in health care (and beyond if my skills and experiences allow).  But it's more than just meeting credentialing requirements for my professional associations that I'm talking about.  I believe that I have a personal obligation to help others if I can.  And I believe that this is the same perspective that my two current mentors hold towards me.  They have a passion for advising, coaching and guiding others and they certainly don't do it because of a credentialing requirement, for any public accolades, nor for the money.  I believe this illustrates that a truly successful mentoring relationship comes from a personal investment in that relationship.  Sounds corny, but I believe they care about my situation and my success.  Unfortunately,  I've seen too many other scenarios play out where the motivations, particularly on the part of the mentor, are less altruistic.  Ultimately, these relationships die off rather quickly with other obligations getting in the way of a mentor/mentee connection.  The outcome is a mentee feeling rather disillusioned by the experience and the mentor breathing a sigh of relief that this particular activity dropped off their already busy calendar.

First step then, make sure there is a commitment and interest on the part of both parties to mentorship.  Closely related to this factor is the requirement that there actually be some chemistry in the relationship.  It's not necessarily about liking one another - although that certainly helps - but you'll both probably know within a few encounters whether there is some type of connection or basis upon which to build a respectful and productive learning relationship.  Do you look forward with some level of excitement or expectation about an upcoming opportunity to interact or do your feelings tend towards anxiety, trepidation and dread?  Listen to your gut on this and don't be afraid to pull the plug.  Hopefully that is a mutual conclusion you reach and if so I would suggest your next step as a mentor is to help your mentee find a better fit with someone else.

As can be seen from my example, mentorship also does not need to be, nor should it be, an exclusive one-on-one scenario.  In fact, it's unrealistic to expect that one mentor will have all the "answers" and there is going to be far more benefit to a mentee in seeking and cultivating a network of mentors.  A mentor must also recognize their own limitations.  As a mentor you won't have all the answers.  That should take some of the pressure off of you to be all and know all.  It's not that you can't still be of assistance to the mentee, but that assistance might now actually come from helping them to connect with others in your network who might be more able to address a particular situation or circumstance. 

Don't be surprised as well by the two-way flow of mentorship.  Without doubt, there is probably going to be more mentoring flowing in one direction than another.  Typically, that also means that the more senior or experienced individual is giving the more junior or inexperienced individual the benefit of their knowledge.  But I've rarely experienced a situation where I haven't also received some mentoring from my supposed mentee.  Each of us has life and career experiences that are relatively unique and can be used to inform and educate others.  In addition, mentees often have a way of posing questions and challenging established conventions that we seasoned professionals no longer have the freshness to see.

I believe a successful mentorship relationship does not have to be an onerous, calendar-driven initiative.  I have started more than a few of my roles as mentor in that way as part of formal mentoring programs - complete and review profiles, have written objectives for the mentoring opportunity, set up regular meetings, and so forth.  However, I've been able to sustain (and build new) relationships on a much more informal basis beyond the initial formal framework.  In fact, that's what I think has made them successful and sustainable.  It still requires commitment which comes in the form of being available when called upon.  And that doesn't mean having a formal meeting in the mentor's office - for me it's been as simple as a phone call, an e-mail or a conversation over a cup of coffee.  In this way I believe I've been able to successfully maintain a number of mentoring relationships - about twelve on the go right now.  The intensity of each mentoring relationship is different.  Some connections happen on a regular basis - every 2 to 4 weeks - while others have become annual events.  But all of mentees still feel comfortable touching base when the need is there.

A good mentor also just doesn't wait for a call or an e-mail from a mentee to become or remain engaged.  Rather, they have developed an understanding of their colleague, their goals and objectives, their strengths, and the areas in which they can benefit from further learning opportunities.  Again, this is because a good mentor is invested in their mentee.  And rather than waiting for that next call, a good mentor is scanning the environment for opportunities that will support the mentee's development.

It really does bring us back to the image of Yoda and Luke Skywalker.  Ultimately Yoda and Luke succeed together in their mutual endeavor.  That success comes from time spent together, undertaking difficult tasks, developing trust in each other, coming to understand that together they could do great things, and a willingness to take that leap of faith and being willing to learn.  There needs to be that same joint commitment in a mentoring relationship, one that not only develops the leadership potential of the mentee but hones the leadership skill of the mentor. 

After all, it is all about leadership.
  ______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.