Tolerating Mediocre Leadership

I've been hearing more and more the lament of "where is the leadership?" from a variety of quarters over the past few years.  I'm sure most would not be surprised that much of that concern is often focused on the top echelons of our organizations.  Most often it is easiest to critique to those in the C-suite as they are the most visible, are paid the most, and are the ones that shoulder the blame for things gone wrong or not quite right in their organizations.  Just as frequently, they are the ones most under scrutiny by the media and the public in general. This is true for all types of organizations - political parties, large private sector companies, and public sector and not-for-profit ventures. 

What might be surprising to hear, is that many of our top leaders express similar discontent with the caliber of leadership demonstrated by those who report to them or that lead business units throughout their organization.

Despite these laments, misgivings and general feelings of discontent our organizations are seemingly prepared to tolerate this leadership mediocrity.  If not, rather than complaining about the situation wouldn't they have taken concrete steps to change or improve leadership in their organization?  And that doesn't mean just instituting a leadership development program, rather it means modeling and rewarding desired leadership behaviors.  A recent quote from Chief of Army Lieutenant General David Morrison (Australia) has been making the rounds of late and seems appropriate in this context - "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."  Worse yet, I believe that not only do we walk past or tolerate mediocre leadership but many of our organizations unconsciously reward sub-standard leadership.  We support blind adherence to rules and regulations, support a risk management and avoidance approach rather than one of risk taking, and appreciate those who play it safe while holding back those who would be creative and innovative.  We may pay lip service to a desired level of leadership but our actions speak louder than our words.

So why does this situation exist?  In some circumstances, it is evident that as leaders in our own right we have not laid out clear expectations for leadership performance.  To the extent that this doesn't happen the natural inclination of many new leaders/managers is to play it safe.  The rationale approach is "don't make too many mistakes" in our first few days on the job.  Moreover, in large organizations - unless there is an existing dynamic of innovation and risk-taking - the prevailing work culture tends to force a new manager to a pre-existing norm and standard of performance.  Conformity is at the very least subconsciously rewarded and enforced.  This hidden or not so hidden culture can also often be reinforced by a variety of formal organizational structures (e.g., compensation systems) that have not been reformed and changed to support a style of leadership that the organization says it wants.

Just as important as this lack of clarity of expectations is the inability or unwillingness of leaders to have honest conversations about performance or lack thereof.  This includes a willingness on the part of any leader to interrogate their own reality, assess their own leadership performance, and be open to feedback from their direct reports and others.  This unwillingness and unease to confront the gap between words and actions brings us back to Lieutenant General David Morrison's statement above.  In many respects, we get the leadership we deserve as much through our inaction as through positive engagement with our constituents.  Our lack of action speaks volumes.  If we are to raise the standard for leadership in our organizations we must recognize a need to be clear and assertive about our expectations.  This doesn't mean being engaged in perpetual conflict and performance management conversations (I hope) but it does mean having the courage of your stated convictions.  That's really what effective management and leadership is all about.

There are a couple of other explanations about why leadership is the way it is in many of our organizations.  One disturbing conclusion comes from an assumption that leadership mediocrity has become more the norm than the exception and as a result we no longer really distinguish between good and bad leadership.  A bit of the boiled frog analogy.  A frightening thought from my viewpoint.  In fact, perhaps we are simply looking for managers and leaders to fill a slot on the org chart, get along with as many people as possible and help us create a "no news is good news" culture. 

An even more disturbing thought from my perspective is that perhaps the definition of leadership truly has shifted.  Perhaps the collective "we" really does not want or value courageous leaders - those leaders who have bold vision, are prepared to take on the sacred cows, embrace and foster change, recognize that past approaches can't solve current problems and future challenges, and actively seek to disrupt the status quo through innovation, creativity, transparency and engagement.  I hope I am wrong!

It is my sincere - and maybe naïve and idealistic - hope that our leadership lament DOES imply a collective desire to recruit, support and develop leaders who are willing to challenge the status quo, offer new ideas and energy, authentically engage all constituents, and ultimately are prepared to take on a servant leadership mantle to co-create better organizational responses to pressing requirements of our new and ever-dynamic reality.  Mediocrity in leadership at all levels clearly is not going to move us beyond our current challenges.
______________________________

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.