Performance Management - Using 360 Degree Feedback

One of the tools that I believe is under utilized and/or poorly executed in performance management is 360-degree feedback.  I have found it to be worth the effort it requires both as it relates to my own performance assessments and to those that have received evaluations from me.

The value of a 360-degree assessment comes from the fact that no one individual or supervisor ever has a complete picture of an individual's performance.  As I've noted in my recent blogs on performance management, a leader often has many individuals reporting to them and has their own individual tasks and duties to perform.  So there isn't the time on the part of one person to get the full story.  In addition, with only one perspective in play, we run the risk of maximizing our personal biases.  This can mean either overly positive or overly negative performance assessments.  So the ability to assess the performance of a direct report in a comprehensive fashion is significantly aided by enlisting the assistance of others who interact with the person being evaluated either on a more frequent basis or in ways that the leader can't possibly replicate. 

The way that I have approached 360-degree assessments in my past leadership roles has been through a partnership approach with my direct reports.  We work together first to identify categories of people that we would engage in the evaluation process.  Oftentimes this has meant that we are looking to capture feedback from peers, subordinates, and external clients/customers for the process. 

There are several keys here.  First, we are looking for a representative sample of key groups of individuals that the employee interacts with.  We are not going to be exhaustive in this process and work to capture all people in a given category.  Second, I strongly believe in having subordinates be part of this evaluation process.  They are the people who, on a day-to-day basis, directly experience the quality of leadership skill that the individual being evaluated brings to bear in their work.  Third, I also see value in including external contacts in the evaluation process.  These evaluators provide an unique perspective on relationships outside of the work unit or organization that are critical to organizational success. 

One of the first reactions to this sampling procedure might be "Well, wouldn't the person being evaluated simply make sure they picked people that would give them a positive evaluation?"  If left entirely to the individual that could happen.  However, the way I approach the final selection of the 360 degree evaluators is more by way of elimination.  Once the key categories of evaluators has been established the next question I ask is whether there is anybody that the employee would not want me to talk to and the reasons why.  There may be very valid reasons for non-selection, including both personal and professional conflicts that would not support constructive feedback.  That being said we might still proceed to include these potentially "hostile" evaluators.  I have done this with 360s performed on me.  The feedback received might in fact be very constructive and valuable in helping to improve personal performance and should not be discounted out-of-hand.  However, both the leader and the person being evaluated should understand the context or circumstances in which the feedback might be provided and weigh it accordingly.  Ultimately, I believe the entire evaluation is not about getting 100% positive results, but rather forms the basis for goals and objectives for ongoing leadership development.  Our harshest critics might in be our greatest source of knowledge about where to focus our improvement efforts!

I strongly believe that anonymity in the 360 degree evaluation process is critical in getting good feedback on performance.  I believe this is the most effective way to get honest and open feedback.  It does have the potential drawback in that you cannot do follow-up or seek clarification on information provided.  However, I have seen some extraordinarily bad outcomes when this anonymity was not assured.  While some individuals are prepared to provide feedback regardless of format many others tend to water down their feedback in the interests of preventing hurt feelings.  In the worst case, particularly where a leader is being evaluated, there can be huge actual or perceived risks to the working relationship or even the employment status of the evaluator.

The 360 process must also include self-assessment.  Ultimately assessment, learning and action come from personal insights and commitments.  So there is great value in personally evaluating one's strengths and opportunities for improvement, identifying potential challenges in achieving greater levels of success, and finally (and most importantly) setting goals and objectives for the coming year. 

Make no mistake.  A 360 degree evaluation process is a lot of work.  As a leader (and as the person being evaluated) you are putting additional workload on others to give time, thought and effort to an evaluation process.  As a leader, there is also significant effort required on your part to manage the process and synthesize the diverse perspectives into one common evaluation report back to your direct report.  This is often one of the main reasons that leaders or organizations do not pursue the 360 degree evaluation option.  In addition, the culture of the organization must be supportive of this type of assessment.  If your organizational culture isn't one that can handle giving or receiving constructive feedback or isn't one that is "trust-based" a 360 degree evaluation process is unlikely to succeed or accomplish much.

However, I believe the benefits of a 360 degree evaluation process far outweigh the challenges - if properly done.  Individuals should be assured of getting a comprehensive assessment of their skills and abilities; they get feedback from more than just one person and can have more confidence that the evaluation is less subject to personal bias; they have a better sense of how their personal assessment does or does not match with the views of others; and, ultimately the 360 degree assessment provides a strong base for developmental efforts. 

With the right effort, commitment, intent, transparency and connection to organizational goals, a 360 degree evaluation can help you build leadership skill and capacity - including your own. 

______________________________

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.

Performance Management - It's Not a Magic Act!

If you are old-school like me, one of the enduring images of magic is the proverbial rabbit out-of-the-hat trick.  For some reason I even conjure up images of magic being performed by looney tunes characters - Bugs Bunny turning the tables on Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam.  Aside from Bugs making whatever scheme backfire on his nemesis at the end of the skit, the lead-up to the end is always characterized by more than a few chase scenes and a lot of gunfire.  It seems to me that too many of us adopt this same approach to the performance management process.  The evaluator and the person being evaluated look forward with some element of dread and anxiety to the "required" annual (if we are lucky) performance appraisal, both hoping to pull the rabbit out of the hat at the end of the session. 

In my last blog entry on this topic, I focused my attention largely on development of performance objectives.  In this blog, I'm going to advocate for meaningful, ongoing continuous performance feedback relative to those mutually agreed upon goals. 

A major reason why both a supervisor and a direct report approach the annual performance meeting with so much anxiety is that all too often they are not sure what to expect in this once-per-year session. In preparing for an annual meeting, the supervisor tries to come up with a meaningful assessment and dredge their memory for examples of good performance or areas for improvement.  Too often as well, the supervisor is pressed for time as they attempt to fit in a one-hour appointment with their direct report while trying to deal with a myriad of other demands on their time.  How many of us can relate to the experience of a performance appraisal being postponed multiple times?  For the direct report, who may have been tasked with self-assessment as part of the performance review and has had limited feedback on performance since last year, they walk into the annual review guessing at what might come up in the meeting - are they doing as well as they think they are, what things might they have to defend against if they disagree with their supervisor's assessment, and so on.  Both supervisor and direct report are waiting to see whether they pull a rabbit - or an elephant - out of the hat.

There is a far better alternative.  If an organization and its leaders are truly interested in effective performance management - and in creating an environment in which their staff grow and develop over time - then performance feedback must be provided to an individual on a continuous basis.  I'm not suggesting that there has to be daily monitoring and reporting back to an individual, nor anything that starts to smack of micro-management of individual performance.  I believe that one of the key objectives of performance management has to be growth and development and that is only going to be achieved by allowing individuals to work on their own, make some mistakes and get regular support and guidance.  Again, as identified in the previous blog, the focus of such monitoring should be on results being achieved, individual behaviours and other factors impacting agreed-upon objectives.

So what does continuous feedback look like?  There might be immediate concern or questions about how can I as a leader provide continuous feedback to a direct report if I have trouble even finding the time for an annual performance review?  The answer lies in providing this continuous feedback in a different way.  I do not believe it has to be as formal as the annual performance appraisal and it should be incorporated into other opportunities that likely already exist.  I expect that on a regular basis a leader and their direct report interact as it relates to projects, tasks or duties that have been assigned.  These project/task updates provide not only an opportunity to evaluate results being achieved but present a chance to touch base with the individual and provide immediate and personalized feedback in the moment.  The leader can immediately reinforce and support good performance or provide coaching to better performance related to specific events.  The leader and the direct report have a concrete example that can be used to reinforce expectations and goals set in the annual performance appraisal.  There may even be an opportunity to adjust objectives based on real time information, changes in priorities for the organization since the last formal meeting, or to identify the need for extra support for the direct report to be successful. 

Continuous feedback, coaching and performance feedback provides great benefits to both leader and direct report.  The leader has opportunity to demonstrate their skills, can ensure that projects/ tasks are in fact progressing as planned, and ultimately ensures effective advancement of organizational objectives.  For the individual receiving continuous feedback, they are assured of ongoing support as required, they are clear about expectations at all times, and they feel valued and recognized for their efforts on a consistent basis.

More importantly for both parties there are no surprises in this approach to performance management.  Neither is waiting for the curtain to rise on the magic show.  Neither party should be approaching the performance appraisal with dread or uncertainty.  All this should have been done away with because there has been regular communication throughout the past year.  Both the leader and the direct report are on the same page, both understand each other's expectations, both understand the realities that may have impacted on performance, and both know what yet needs to be done to achieve or set new goals. 

Make no mistake, ongoing performance monitoring and feedback still requires effort and energy.  However, it comes in smaller doses and has the benefit of not letting performance issues fester for a whole year - far easier to course correct in small doses than having to address a major performance issue later on. 

If you engage with your staff on a regular basis your job as leader becomes easier - and you won't need any magic to get a great performance!
______________________________

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.

Performance Management - it is what you make of it!

A previous blog entry of mine on team-based compensation generated more than a few e-mails, questions and comments.  The themes that came back to me included:

• Are we willing to remove the people or teams that hold everyone else back?
• How do you get everyone engaged and moving in the same direction?
• If I'm a high achiever/performer why would I want to carry the weight of those that don't perform?
• What if the goals and objectives set for me are not achievable or simply don't make sense?  I'm set up to fail from the beginning!

I believe that one of the most - if not the most - important mechanisms to address these questions and concerns is a well developed and managed performance management system.  There are so many aspects to what I believe constitutes a good performance management system that I'm actually going to tackle the subject in more than one blog entry.  I'm also going to approach the issue from the basis of what I've seen be successful from my own personal experience and learning over the past 20 plus years of management.

Unfortunately, too many of us - leaders and followers alike - approach the performance management exercise with anxiety and dread.  Historically, the process seems to have been defined by its potential for conflict and disappointment - and tremendous relief when it's over.  However, I'm going to suggest that performance management, if well done, can create the exact opposite feelings in most cases.

I'm sure most leaders recognize that effective performance management is key to maintaining and increasing employee commitment and productivity.  Moreover, with current and projected labour shortages no organization can afford to lose current staff through poor, or non-existent, performance management practices.  Yet we seem to miss a golden opportunity to retain staff - and develop them - through an effectively structured and supported performance management process.

First of all, there must be some fundamental building blocks in place to set the stage for the performance management process.  At the outset, the organization itself must have clearly established strategic directions to which it is expecting to align all individual goals and performance expectations.  It's more than a tad difficult and frustrating for an employee to be told they are not making the grade if the organization itself has not been clear about what its goals and objectives are.  Just as importantly, the organization should take time to clearly articulate its vision, values, and expected behaviours - basically be clear about the culture that defines the organization.  An organization might be very clear about its objectives (e.g., revenue generation) but not be at all pleased with how those goals were achieved (e.g., illegal activity).  Both the goals and the cultural expectations should be well articulated to set the stage for performance management.

This is just the start, however, of the goal setting process.  Large strategic goals need to be translated down to goals for individual business units of the organization and then down through to the individual.  A large strategic direction like revenue generation may have very different application and meaning for the Finance department versus the Human Resources department versus an operational division or program.  Time must be taken to make the large strategic goals relevant to the individual in their day-to-day performance and as part of the formal performance management process.

In addition to the establishment of the hard metrics around organizational/sub-unit performance, goals should be clear as it relates to the performance behaviours identified above.  Just as with the work required to explicitly describe what realization of strategic goals looks like, similar work must be undertaken to describe in factual terms what it means to be a good performer/leader within the organization.  The organization must be able to paint a clear picture of what it means to be a good performer within the organizational culture - and each organization will have distinct features and performance expectations of its staff, so this is not just a cut-and-paste effort from looking at what has worked for other businesses.

Finally, there must be meaningful discussion between a leader and the person who reports to them on the goals, objectives and performance expectations.  This is critical in not only establishing the performance parameters but also in ensuring that there is understanding and buy-in to the objectives.  This conversation goes a long way to ensuring that both the leader and the direct report agree that the performance objectives are in fact achievable or actually even relate to the job the direct report is doing.  There may even be opportunity to understand or appreciate under what circumstances the desired performance might not be achievable - e.g., key environmental variables change.  Moreover, this is a point at which other non-strategic objectives and goals can be discussed.  There is much in the day-to-day role of any employee or manager that is not strategic in nature but is critically important to maintaining and advancing operational effectiveness of a business unit - good fiscal oversight, resolution of operational problems, hiring of other staff, etc.  These basic functions require attention and consideration in setting performance management objectives. 

At this point I have only discussed what is required as the base foundation for effective and meaningful performance management.  In subsequent entries I will focus on processes of continuous feedback, 360 degree performance reviews, and connection to reward and recognition systems.
______________________________

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.

How engaged are we with employee engagement?

I recently came across two different articles focused on the same fundamental issue - employee engagement.  The first article by Dov Seidman started with the very provocative headline of "(Almost) Everything We Think About Employee Engagement is Wrong".  The article  http://www.forbes.com/sites/dovseidman/2012/09/20/everything-we-think-about-employee-engagement-is-wrong/  got a lot of reaction from the author's readers and from those I shared it with.  And just this week there was a complementary article in my local paper entitled "The fine art of faking it".  

Both articles, in one way or another, touched on the "cost" of employee engagement efforts.  In one respect, this cost was referenced in terms of actual expenditures on extensive morale boosting efforts undertaken by all manner of companies and industries.  In another respect, the cost of not having engaged staff was identified in its impact on quality of customer service, product quality and other objectives.  In health care, there have been number of connections drawn between engaged staff and better patient outcomes.  So clearly there is a business imperative for leaders to improve their employee engagement and positively impact their ability to deliver on organizational mandates.

It's not as though there hasn't been a lot of effort and energy put into employee engagement efforts.  Certainly many organizations have put a significant amount of resources into surveying their staff, holding staff forums, revamping their employee recognition programs, emphasizing the importance of performance reviews and feedback, and trying to implement team-building exercises.  Unfortunately the effort, and the cost, has not been reflected in the results.  In some cases, despite these efforts, employee engagement scores have actually gone down.

So what's going on?  What are we missing?  What do we have to do differently as leaders to get better employee engagement and impact our ability to deliver quality service to our customers?  There are certainly a few clues to be found in both articles that certainly resonate with me personally and that I believe passionately in.  First, I believe that we have to make a very deliberate and conscious effort to move away from some of the mentality that exists in our leadership/management ranks that employee engagement is a cost or expense line on our financial statements.  This becomes a particularly challenging notion to overcome when employee engagement scores aren't going up as a result of current efforts and the need to achieve other "bottom line" results would seemingly benefit from a redirection of resources.  We need to change the tone of our approach from one of cost management to one of investment in our most valuable resource.

Second, we need to reconsider whether our customers are in fact our #1 priority - or should staff be our #1 priority?  In healthcare particularly this can be a very challenging discussion and one that I have struggled with myself.  However, if you accept the connection between quality of service and an engaged workforce then it seems clear that there must be a greater emphasis on staff and enjoyment of their work environment.

Third, and touched on by the picture above, leaders/managers must take steps to align all elements of the workplace to make it easier for staff to do great work.  Slogans, lunches, team-building exercises and similar exercises may create hope at the beginning of an effort.  They may also create expectations of positive change as well.  However, all of this effort is easily derailed once a staff member encounters the reality of a poorly done (or not done) performance appraisal, the lack of equipment to do his/her job, or the barrier of some bureaucratic process which confounds an ability to do good work.  Hence, why engagement scores can often go down when an employee engagement effort is launched - reality fails to meet expectations and cynicism rises.

Finally, I believe it is fundamentally important in all of these efforts at employee engagement that leaders be sincere in their commitment to such efforts.  Leaders cannot just be engaged at the launch of an employee engagement effort.  Even more frequent events - monthly or quarterly - in large settings are not likely to demonstrate to staff an understanding of their challenges or the barriers they face in trying to do good work.  Nor can an employee engagement merely be a priority or initiative of the human resources department.  It has to be a specific performance expectation of all senior leaders and departments. 

Ultimately as well, I believe that to be truly successful an employee engagement effort must come from a leader's own interest in other people.  If you really don't involve yourself with your staff and set that tone for your direct reports it's unlikely that you will make major headway in engagement efforts.  In addition, individual leadership actions outside of formal employee engagement events and pronouncements must match the direction and philosophy of the initiative.  Nothing will do more damage more quickly to employee engagement efforts if leaders are seen as not sharing in the same challenges, making the same sacrifices, or reaping the same rewards as their front line staff.

Ironically enough the best success in employee engagement is likely to come less from a focus on bottom line results as a driving force - profit, revenue stream, customer satisfaction, market share - than from a sincere interest in your people for it's own sake.  If you are genuinely interested and committed to your staff, prepared to truly engage with them on a day-to-day basis, then success on the organization's bottom line metrics will come.  Your employees will know when you are being genuine versus just seeing them as a means to an end.  Your leadership shows in every interaction you have and every action you take.

So how engaged are you with employee engagement?  It's a major effort and requires a lot of your energy.  Are you prepared for this leadership challenge?
______________________________

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.

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.