The Power of Vision, Commitment and Legacy

Over this past week I was privileged to find myself in Warsaw, Poland, representing the Edmonton Charter Chapter of the International Coach Federation at the annual Global Leadership Forum.  Coaching leadership from over 68 countries collaborating to support the growth of the coaching profession, our chapters and our clients.  More on that later in future posts!

What the trip also afforded me, albeit in a very limited fashion, was the ability to get to know the history of Warsaw and Poland to a greater degree than what I previously possessed. I’m an avid history buff so that was perhaps saying something.  Most particularly I had a chance to visit the Warsaw Uprising Museum and the Royal Castle.  In both cases, I had the opportunity to fully appreciate the utter and complete devastation that Warsaw experienced as a result of World War II and the challenges it faced under Nazi, Soviet and Communist rule.  Warsaw – a thriving and artistic metropolis of over 1 million people reduced to a pile of rubble occupied by no more than a few thousand at war’s end.

The journey back for Warsaw actually started at the commencement of hostilities in September 1939 and in some respects continues to this day.  When Nazi planes started bombing the city, many of its cultural icons and buildings were immediately put at risk with the Royal Palace being severely damaged at the outset.  Many brave Poles began the effort to save the artifacts within the building even to the point of losing their lives doing so.  Throughout those early days of desperation and ultimate defeat they continued the effort to preserve as much of the art and even the architecture of their buildings. They showed as much determination in terms of preserving their heritage as the Nazi’s did in destroying and looting it. 

No reprieve came to the residents of Warsaw and Poland as the war drew to a close.  Quite the contrary.  As Nazi Germany went through its death throes, Hitler and his cronies were more determined than ever to destroy what they could not own or control while at the same time making Warsaw a devastating battleground with the Soviet war machine.  The result was that literally all of Warsaw was laid waste and the Royal Castle purposely destroyed by the Nazi’s before withdrawing from the area.

As might be imagined, the Soviet Union and its Communist-installed regime were in no rush to support reconstruction of glories of the past or anything that might detract from unswerving allegiance to a new world order.  As a result reconstruction of the Royal Castle was not started until 1971 – fully 25 years after the end of World War II – and was not fully restored until 1988.

What does any of have this to with my usual focus on leadership?  Simply this – consider the vision and the commitment to preserving a cultural heritage taken up by a few key leaders and likely hundreds if not thousands of other ordinary citizens from 1939 through to 1988. As I noted earlier, those who took steps to preserve the arts and architecture of the Royal Castle at the start and for the duration of World War II often paid for that effort with their lives.  This meant not only removing art and furnishings from the Royal Castle.  As I learned it also sometimes entailed removing pieces of the building itself – frescoes, statues, decorative paneling – all to be carried away and hidden until the war was over. 

Regardless of whether these same individuals survived the war or not, many of them must have realized that they likely were not going to be around for the restoration of the Royal Palace or any other edifice in Warsaw.  And yet they not only undertook the immediate effort and risk, but persevered in their commitment for the two plus decades that followed. They had to have known that their vision would not be realized in their lifetime.  They faced a multitude of challenges including barriers put in place by authorities of the day and the very real issues facing a rebuilding nation and economy. But they persevered and sacrificed in support of their vision anyway.

Just as importantly, these visionaries were able to convince the populace of Warsaw, Poland and others to contribute to the rebuilding and restoration of the Royal Castle.  By 1975 over $500 million zloty had been raised through voluntary contribution including from Polish citizens who in many ways had so little to give at the time as they continued to work to restore the basic necessities of life.  Art and artifacts hidden during the war were recovered and returned for inclusion in the new structure.  And new significant pieces of art were donated from other countries around the world. 

How many of us struggle to create a vision for ourselves or the businesses we lead that goes much beyond two to three years?

How many of us aspire to create and sustain a vision with the power to impact well beyond ourselves operating with the realization that its achievement will be beyond our physical ability to see realized?

In today’s world how many of us would even entertain such prospects if there were not something of immediate gain in such a venture for us?

I hope you can take from this short post a sense of the inspiration and awe I felt for those with the commitment to build for more than just themselves.  To be inspired by the selfless sacrifices that others were prepared to make for future generations and that we have seen in other similar circumstances - in business, in charitable causes, and in nation-building - and to challenge ourselves to a higher level of performance and goal setting. 

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
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.

Good Leadership Requires Good Governance - Redux

It's often been said, in one form or another, as goes the leader so goes the company.  Rest assured this is not going to be another blog/commentary about Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau or any other potentially polarizing public figure.  My focus continues to be on the impact that leadership - for good or bad - has on the culture and success of an organization.  But as recent events in my own community have proven out again (http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/a-cross-to-bear-edmonton-catholic-school-trustees-are-plagued-by-conflicts-secrecy-and-questionable-conduct), often times its not just about the President/CEO and their leadership philosophy that can have impact on organizational functioning and success.  For very many organizations the quality and effectiveness of a Board of Directors begins to the set the tone from the very top.

I'm not sure how many of us appreciate the role that Boards of Directors play in setting direction for large organizations and helping it achieve those objectives.  In most circumstances public and media focus falls on a leader - a President, a CEO or other top executive.  Ultimately, however, a well functioning Board is fundamental to the success of an organization through their decisions - not the least of which is their selection of THE senior operational leader.  The quality of their decision making and their commitment to their governance task can have wide-ranging impact.

I have worked with a variety of boards in my 25 year career.  I have worked with good boards and not so good boards.  I have seen them lose their way in a variety of circumstances including being burdened with an ineffective Chair, a disruptive board member, uncommitted board members, boards that get too involved in operations, and boards that simply perform a rubber stamp role for what senior leadership wants to get done.  Ineffective governance can severely compromise and inhibit the ability of an organization to succeed and fulfill its mandate.

Sometimes boards don't even understand what their key responsibilities are.  This lack of understanding or confusion can often arise from the process by which a person is recruited to the board or the quality of the orientation they receive upon becoming a member.  Those boards that function on the basis of being elected have an additional potential challenge of individual "platforms" (e.g., axes to grind) entering into the equation.

Too often board members can be selected on criteria that may have nothing to do with kinds of skills that a board requires to fulfill its functions - they are part of the same personal network as existing board members, they are prominent community members, they are politically connected, they are major donors, and so on and so forth.  None of these factors necessarily make for a good board member.  A poor selection process can then be compounded by inadequate orientation to the role of the board.  In that circumstance, an individual board member has to either rely on the skills they bring to the table from their life outside of the board room, the examples set by their fellow board members (for good or bad), or they may be left to take what orientation or guidance they might get from senior leadership of the organization.  Not the ideal recipe for success.

So what's the starting point for good governance?  The first task is clearly understanding what the roles of the board are.  First and foremost a board needs to focus on setting direction - making clear choices on an organization's vision, mission, values and strategic directions.  Failure to fully engage in this first set of major responsibilities means that an organization can easily drift from its fundamental purposes.  Failure to develop cohesion around these fundamental building blocks also and inevitably leads to conflict between board members that impacts on organizational performance and public confidence.  Moreover, if there is no consensus among the Board as to vision, mission, values and strategic directions how can senior operational leadership be effectively guided or held accountable for performance? 

Second, a board is required to exercise oversight on organizational performance.  It is important here to distinguish oversight for organizational performance from managing the organization.  Neither the board as a whole nor individual board members (including the Chair) should get involved in managing the organization.  The temptation to direct operations is intense, especially for those board members who lead and manage significant entities outside of the organization for which they are a board member. The board needs to remember that they have engaged operational leaders - the CEO in particular - to manage operational matters.  Ostensibly, they have utilized a robust process for recruitment and selection, have followed up with appropriate performance reviews and feedback, and have trust in the CEO and other management personnel to achieve the Board-established strategic directions.  If the Board lacks such confidence then it has erred in selection, has erred in communicating expectations, or perhaps has not been engaged in managing performance at all.  Ultimately, if that confidence erodes the choice of the Board is to more clearly communicate its expectations or remove the CEO.  The choices available to the Board should not include becoming more engaged in operational decision-making.

That being said, a Board MUST exercise appropriate oversight.  It must be clear on its expectations and establish robust and objective mechanisms by which to evaluate CEO performance on achievement of the organization's vision and strategic directions.  Moreover, a Board would do well to evaluate not only outcomes but also - at a high level - how those outcomes were achieved.  The Board has a key role in ensuring that the values of the organization are fostered and upheld.  Every effort should be made to ensure that objective, quantifiable reports on performance are made available to the Board on a regular basis.  In this regard, the Board should avail itself of a variety of forms of feedback to evaluate performance and success in achieving objectives. 

Finally, a Board manages its direction setting accountability, its oversight responsibility, and its own functions by establishing policy.  These policies must clearly distinguish Board function from management function.  Just as important, they must describe and detail how the Board itself shall function - role of Chair and other officers of the Board, how decisions will be made, what committee structures if any will be utilized, and so forth.  This is one distinct way to ensure clarity of roles and to diminish and manage potential conflicts.

As can be imagined, it is easy for Boards to become involved in non-Board activities and tasks.  Board members can easily neglect the very real work that is required to ensure proper Board functioning.   If this high-level, strategic work is not done or is done poorly, there will be little or no foundation for success for the organization as a whole. 

Boards have very real responsibilities.  The tasks they are engaged in cannot be minimized or trivialized.  We have seen too many organizational failures in recent years which can be traced back to governance failures.  Complacency about board performance is not an option.  However, effective governance does not mean becoming more engaged in operational leadership.  Nor is it to establish ever more controls and bureaucracy.  Boards need to do very real work in understanding their roles and responsibilities, establish proper structures to do their work, recruit and retain good members, and set the tone for the values and ethics that will guide the organization.

To achieve operational excellence there must be a foundation of governance excellence.  Good leadership requires good governance.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
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.