Trust - A Leadership Cornerstone

Most of us in leadership positions expect or need to have confidence in the abilities of those that work with or for us.  We want to trust that our subordinates have the skills and abilities to perform their duties capably if not at an exceptional level.  Even more importantly we endeavor to be assured that our team members are committed to our shared objectives, will in fact put forward their best efforts, and will communicate with us honestly about their achievements and challenges.  There are a whole lot of assumptions built into this little vignette - that we have properly defined the jobs we have hired peopled into, that our expectations are clear, that our hiring process are robust enough to pick the best candidates, etc. - but fundamentally, we believe that once we have hired on a subordinate that they can be trusted to perform.

But how does your leadership build - or destroy - that expectation of trust on your team?  I suggest that the performance you are getting and the trust that exists within a team is largely based on the example you set and the environment you create as a leader.

Patrick Lencioni identifies trust or the lack of trust as the fundamental building block of team performance - good or bad.  He suggests that truly great teams have a high level of trust that allows them to be comfortable with one another, to be able to admit their individual weaknesses and mistakes, to be able to confront without fear the weaknesses of the team, and ultimately have open, unguarded communication.  Without that level of trust, the team underperforms as it lacks the ability to engage in constructive conflict, lacks commitment to common goals, is unaccountable for individual or team performance, and ultimately fails to achieve results.

Lencioni's perspective on trust is a deeper concept than most of us as leaders typically define for ourselves and our teams.  Too many of us believe that commitment, accountability and results are simply the result of a transactional equation - I Pay You and You Do What I Want/Need.  Failure to achieve (sometimes ill-defined expectations) means that you lose a bonus opportunity or run the risk of being fired outright.  No touchy feely approach to leadership and accountability for you!

In my view, as I believe with Lencioni's perspective and that of other leadership gurus, this basic equation of trust and accountability far too easily lets individual leaders off the hook for setting the stage for a trust-based environment and for the the level of results obtained as a result.  One of the fundamental principles that Lencioni espouses in this regard is that there must be leadership by example.  The leader must show the way by demonstrating vulnerability, being prepared to admit weaknesses and mistakes, and thus sets the stage for the team to do the same and creating an opportunity for honest assessment, improvement opportunities, and better performance.

I suspect that for most of us that definitely smells too "new age" and akin to sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya.  So let me give you some very specific and tangible steps to help you - as a leader - build trust within your team.  First, start with setting very clear expectations for individual and team performance.  Simple to say and yet almost unfailingly difficult to operationalize.  Without specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-limited objectives and expectations most team members will be tentative in their efforts and guarded in their communications not knowing or trusting as to whether they can meet their leader's expectations.  Expectations must not only be clear for the individual team member but the leader too must explicitly define expectations for themselves that are visible to the rest of the team.

Second, there must be demonstrated commitment on the part of the leader to working towards achieving these expectations.  At a basic level this is the integrity check, walking the talk, having your leadership actions match your leadership rhetoric.  Too often team members are accustomed to developing a perspective on their leaders more like "Do as I say, not as I do."  Your leadership actions and words must be aligned.  The leader must similarly demonstrate commitment to the achievement of team objectives through resource allocation, time management (e.g., priority setting) and recognition of results.  Failure to do so is the surest way to diminish trust and attendant effort.

Third, communication must be ever present - at the beginning of the team-building and expectation setting process, as progress is made towards goals, as barriers to success are encountered, as environmental circumstances change and as success is achieved.  This is not about micro-managing.  Rather, this is about maintaining two-way, open communication, ensuring clarification of expectations, supporting efforts as required, encouraging, and redirecting as necessary.  Communication in this regard can be compared to the feedback we get from our car's dashboard - speed, distance, fluid levels, warning lights - all of which give us confidence as to appropriate progress towards our final destination.

Finally, building trust with the leader and within the team is also being clear about consequences related to both good and bad performance.  This closes the loop on expectation setting discussed earlier.  Ultimately the leader is the enforcer, referee, and ultimate arbiter on performance standards.  If, as a leader, you fail to appropriately award or discipline team members - and self - based on results or adherence to agreed-upon team norms then the trust that you might have worked so hard to establish can be erased in an instance.  The standard of performance you pass by is the standard of performance that you accept.  The consequences and the standards of performance become the pre-established and transparent benchmarks against which decisions are made.  There is no "nice" or "mean" about it.  It just is.  This helps support consistency and supports decision-making on the part of the leader.

One last piece of advice in this regard.  Creating an environment of trust is not a one-off event.  If you haven't already come to this conclusion from the discourse above let me emphasize that the effort you make in creating a trust-based (and high-performing) environment requires steady effort and energy.  It's very much like building up your personal line of credit with your financial institution.  Small steps every day that can be negatively impacted with one default, large or small.  If you've built up a decent level of trust and admit to your mistakes and weaknesses you are certainly more likely to whether any small or short-term setback.

Leadership by example creates the trust you've been looking for and expecting all along. 
______________________________

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.

Toxic Leadership - Part Two

Just over a month ago I published a post entitled "Toxic Leadership". At the end of that post the question of not just simply identifying a toxic leader but effectively working or managing in such an environment was left open.  The article that I drew from at the time seemed to imply that the only effective strategy in dealing with a toxic boss was to simply cope with that reality.  A less polished way to put it would be "suck it up buttercup."

So I put it to you - the reader of this blog - to ponder alternatives to managing a toxic leader and surviving the personal angst and chaos that ensues.  Unfortunately, even with time and discussion and feedback what came back to me were two relatively harsh alternatives.  The first commonly stated alternative was in fact to merely accept this as an inevitable consequence of a working life.  In this harsh assessment it is clear that those who shared their thoughts (or despair) with me were not alone.  Gallup research seems to consistently bear out a common theme of poor leadership and lack of engagement of staff in literally all industries.  Common terminology used to describe such poor leaders includes - self-oriented, stubborn, overly demanding, and impulsive.

The second most common response I received back was that the (best/only) way to manage a toxic leader was to accept defeat and move on to another role in another part of the organization or to leave altogether.  The challenge with that alternative goes directly back to the Gallup research just noted above.  Most industries, sectors, and companies all seem to suffer from poor leaders.  So you might just be moving from the frying pan to the fire in your attempt to escape a bad situation.

I did get some other insights from my readers and I've expanded upon those kernels below.  Perhaps these are more practical then simply resorting to the alternatives of self-suppression and flight noted above.  The first solid piece of advice to provide is to clearly understand yourself.  While that may seem like an odd place to start when trying to think about dealing with a bad boss it's crucial in making sure you know what's important to you and what your boundaries are.  What this understanding of self positions you to do is more effectively pick your battles.  You can then better evaluate whether a "compromise" is morally and ethically defeating versus simply being annoying and inconvenient.  Essentially you can determine which one of the options for coping - management or flight is the best option.

It was also clear from the responses I received that while I might have focused on the more malicious type of leader in my first post, a number of you are dealing with a different varieties of poor leaders.   Hence you have some specific "solutions" to provide in that context.  The broader array of poor leadership included the micro-manager (short on vision, long on telling you how to do "everything"), the grand visionary (long on vision, unable to comprehend or frustrated by the work required to achieve the vision), the "analyst" and risk manager (every contingency and piece of data mapped out), the self-centred leader (it is all about me) and finally the truly incompetent leader (
More than a few of us have dealt with a leader who is short on "vision" but long on the ability to fixate on the smallest detail of any initiative.  The result for you is a high degree of frustration at best or intense feelings of inadequacy at worst. 

While these are all very different types of scenarios and leaders there are some common techniques and strategies by which you can perhaps more effectively manage - and perhaps even succeed - in these environments:

• Be prepared.  Unfortunately you are going to have to put in more time into this "relationship" than your boss will.  Regardless of what type of bad boss you have none of them have as much at stake as you do.  Understand yourself and your boundaries, prepare in advance for each meeting, and map a plan/objectives for each meeting or initiative.  As a leader yourself you can manage the relationship.  In some ways it's important to think of your boss as your most important customer.
• Don't assume.  As a corollary to "Be Prepared" don't make the mistake of assuming anything about what your boss will want, knows, expects or will do.  In any of these scenarios you don't have the luxury of not planning for or anticipating a variety of circumstances.  Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
• Don't try to be right.  This is a hard one to swallow but in the "battle" you're in you are going to have to decided whether you want to be right or get the right thing done.  They are not necessarily the same thing.  Be clear about your ultimate goal for the particular project or initiative and be prepared to alter tactics to ensure success.
• Understand your boss.  I found with one of my worst bosses that I really had to make an effort to get into his head.  I certainly would never lead the way he did, but I did try to anticipate what might set him off (e.g., one too many chairs for the Board meeting!) and resigned myself to many agonizing minutes of silence as he "visioned" the next big thing.  This meant being disciplined in my work habits and approach.  I also tried to emulate his language.  Explaining things my way was not as successful as explaining things his way.
• Support your boss.  Several of my readers reflected on a boss who has clearly been promoted too quickly, had an awesome interview that belied a lack of substance, or was the best of a bunch of poor candidates.  Now what?  For most of us, if we are committed to our organization, our staff or our customers, it means we do our level best to deliver great service regardless or in spite of the leadership handicap we labor under.  Our satisfaction comes from succeeding despite that handicap.
• Engage a team.  Most times, despite the strength and validity of your arguments, the strength of your position, or even your own personal credibility and history as a leader you won't be in a position to effectively counter a poor leader one-on-one.  You may need to engage like-minded allies.  I'm not suggesting fostering a mutiny.  That's a dangerous road.  Rather, you need more than one voice offering alternatives, respectfully questioning direction or decisions, and otherwise offering other solutions.  If you become the lone voice within you could soon be the lost voice without.

It often takes more energy and effort to lead up than it takes to lead a team of subordinates.  Your team has less choice about whether to follow you.  This is also true of a CEO who is trying to work with a Board of Directors, a Board Chair or a group of shareholders.  Leadership is not just about working with those who recognize your authority because you are one or more levels up the ladder from them.  Leadership is also about how you can manage others above you.

Success in managing a poor leader takes a lot more strength, discipline and emotional maturity than feels reasonable but it can be a harsh reality.  I certainly can't say that I've always passed my own personal tests but then continuous learning and growth should always be part of what being an effective leader is all about.
______________________________

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.

The Value in Distraction

A post that once again is inspired by work with my coaching clients.  I was recently engaged by an entrepreneur looking to launch another successful business venture.  Unlike most of my clients he came well-prepared for our first meeting with, amongst other things, a fairly comprehensive business plan and metrics.  Further to that preparation, his efforts transcended a mere business focus and also placed his venture into the context of his life experience and goals.  I was very impressed with the comprehensiveness of his starting point and his obvious focus and determination to succeed.  While I am a business and executive coach, not a life coach, I emphasize and reinforce that NO ONE effectively compartmentalizes the various components of their life - what happens at home impacts work and what happens at work comes home.  This client came to me already seemingly understanding that reality and trying to reach the right balance - if that is what we can call it - between the various components, passions, and commitments in his life.

One thing that also struck me in a different way was a component of his plan that called upon him to make better use of idle time.  In many respects, I read this section to mean that idle time was a negative to be managed or eliminated.  If there was idle time or some form of downtime to be had the intent was to focus this time productively, divert distraction into business reading, perhaps watching a televised business report, or something similar that would continue to round out business thinking, enhancing skills, and otherwise drive success of the new venture in the near to long-term.

What it did for me, however, was raise a question about why as a society or, perhaps more to the point, as business leaders we denigrate distraction and pure idle time.  Taking a page from my previous (I'd like to say current but can't!) Ironman training, it's clear that more and more training becomes counterproductive at some point in time.  After a while, there is not only diminishing marginal returns from all that extra effort but we can actually start to do real physical harm to ourselves by not letting our bodies recover properly between training sessions.  Moreover, most of us have to ramp down workouts several weeks prior to our "A" race in order to be rested and energized for the big test.  Perhaps some truly elite athletes - or masochistic types - do it differently, but for the vast majority of us the rule of thumb is more is not necessarily better.

My suggestion and recommendation on a business intellectual side then is to take the same approach as we would in exercising our physical selves.  Do not discount distraction and idle time.  Rather see it as a way of resting and recuperating your intellectual faculties for the next big push.  I also suggest that you NOT structure this idle time.  I often recommend structured time in one's work calender for reflection and assessment of past efforts and planning for the next go.  That reflective time is different than idle time.  Perhaps the best way to think about idle time as eyes wide open REM sleep.  As to the form of this distraction I suspect the sky is the limit and we may not even recognize when we are doing it.  It could range from absentmindedly doodling on our notepads in a meeting, to zoning out in front of our TV's at supper time, to playing a game on our smartphone.  The truth is our minds need a break just as much as our bodies do in order to be as effective as we believe they should be when the real crunch time comes.

So my admonition to you is to allow yourself the opportunity to be distracted, to enjoy some true idle time, without feeling like you are wasting precious time.  Truth is you need that time to re-energize, refresh and renew for the next big effort.

Go ahead.  Build that Lego Death Star you've always wanted to. 

Or read a few more of my blog posts.  They could be pretty distracting 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.

Strategy, Strategy, Wherefore Art Thou?

Later this week the Government of Alberta will bring down it's 2015/2016 budget.  There have been more than a few trial balloons floated on both the revenue and expenditure side of the equation.  Public sector leaders have been anticipating budget cuts ranging all the way from 2% through to 10%.   When compared to recent years of increases, and further adjusting for inflationary pressures, the anticipated cuts are causing more than a bit of anxiety around what this may all mean.  This is even more true considering that up until this time public sector performance - whether measured by classroom size in schools, wait times in hospital emergency departments, or ability to maintain infrastructure - has been less than noteworthy.

The precipitous drop in the price of oil has seen similar drastic changes in the fortunes of many private sector ventures in Alberta and Saskatchewan (and Russia!) who are either directly involved in or provide services to the oil sector.  Literally thousands of employees and contractors have been let go while other vendors have been told to take substantial cuts in fees if they wish to maintain working relationships with their current partners.

Many of us have seen - and played a role in - this movie before.  In fact, if it were not for the tremendously negative impact it has on services and the many hundreds or thousands of individuals who are dislocated as a result, one might actually laugh and start making comparisons to movie sequels like Rocky (I, II, III, IV, & V).  At some point, it seems clear that there really is no longer a plot line but we feel somehow compelled to watch anyway and see how laborious the story can become.  For those of us who have lived this never ending story the humor works it way towards the dark and cynical side.  We laugh in order not to cry.  We joke if only to keep our sanity.

When I was in the public sector I was often fond of saying "Any fool can balance the budget, just don't provide any service."  My statement reflected my frustration as I perceived that outside of a set of fiscal parameters there was limited if any discussion of what underlying or foundational strategy "we" were being driven by or working towards.  At times it appeared that the only other "strategy" that we had in meeting our fiscal targets was to make sure that somehow no one became upset in the process of us taking significant resources out of the system.   I'm sure there are more than a few even more cynical and jaded pundits who would suggest that the public sector is not currently providing service regardless of level of financial resources being committed to it.  I believe that both perspectives come from the reality that while there has been a fiscal agenda in operation for several decades there has been no concurrent defining or overarching service strategy by which one could rationalize or guide fiscal decisions.  In many ways the tail has been wagging - and overpowering - the dog.

Make no mistake, there have been and are extensive strategic planning processes in effect and glossy strategic plans trotted out on a regular basis.  Unfortunately - again from my perspective - these efforts are defined by an excess of process, the use of elegantly crafted templates, and the next best-in-class graphics that belie a lack of grounding in honest assessments, true insight, and driving commitment to more than surviving the next fiscal year.  And whether we focus on the private or public sector in these down economic times our short-term focus, our willingness to shed our most valued resources - our people - seems at odds with the existence of any real long-term strategy.

Personally I would be more prepared to accept the current and pending cuts in the private and public sector if I could be convinced that there was in fact a real long-term strategy in play.  I further suspect that if there were a long-term strategy in existence, that the current downturn would at the very least entail more surgical precision in decisions being made to reduce body count in our organizations.  The boom and bust cycle that many organizations appear to go through - lamenting the lack of skilled human resources in one quarter or fiscal year followed by an unabashed eagerness to outdo one's competitors or counterparts in layoffs the next - only reinforces a cynical perspective on my part that "strategy" only exists as one more check box on a prescribed list of "management" things to do.

If service is really what our organizations - whether in the public or private sector - are all about surely we can lead better than what we have demonstrated over the past several decades.  If our most valuable asset in achieving our strategic directions are our human resources then surely we would undertake more efforts to preserve those assets.  The reality of thousands of layoffs in 2014 and more to come in 2015 suggest that we have not led well in the preceding years and have been guided by no real strategy.

The layoffs of 2014 and those pending in 2015 are akin to a ship on a storm-tossed sea.  We are just hoping to ride out another storm, lacking the foresight to have planned ahead, retained an experienced crew, and hoping that over the horizon we may find the next safe harbor.





 
______________________________

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.

Do the Facts Speak?

In the middle of last year I was fortunate enough to renew acquaintances with some business associates in the US.  As part of developing a partnership with the firm I was invited down to one of their regional customer summits which in this case was being held in Las Vegas.  The location is somewhat irrelevant as I suspect that some of my experiences could have been similar regardless of location in North America.  One of the more interesting experiences I had was with a cab driver who seemed to come directly out of some past episode of the X-Files - The Truth is Out There! and government is hell bent on one form of deception or manipulation or another.  One of the more prominent subjects on our all too long ride from airport to hotel that day was how Ebola was mutating into an airborne virus and how, when combined with illegal immigration, it was going to bring the nation to the zombie apocalypse.

Fast forward to the March 2015 issue of National Geographic and the cover story about "The War on Science".  Pick your favorite subject and this issue touches on it - vaccines and autism, evolution versus creationism, climate change or not.  Aside from the fascinating reality we live in of such strongly held views it got me thinking about how these types of mindsets play out in our leadership forums on a day-to-day basis.  No less than in the large scientific "debates" of today, business leaders often tout their reliance on the "facts" and the "evidence" to drive their business decisions.  Just as often, however, as we Monday morning quarterbacks dissect another failed business venture it is clear that facts were mostly ignored and even actively suppressed as the cliff of doom rapidly approached.

What makes highly educated, experienced and qualified business leaders, Presidents and CEO's hold on to directions, decisions and initiatives that are clearly unsupported by facts and evidence?  They often tout their reliance on the "hard cold facts" as the cornerstones of their leadership.  One of my takeaways from the National Geographic article is that all too often rather than continuing to be open to the "facts" or new evidence, leaders become personally entrenched and invested in a position.  This positional stance is only enhanced or strengthened when it comes under attack from someone else with whom they don't identify or believe is personally antagonistic to them.  The choice to change or be open to the evidence becomes confused by the fact that they feel personally under attack and become resistant to giving into the evidence being presented by others whom they don't like or can't respect - board members, executive team members, external advisers.  Ego is an Achilles heel of many a leader.

What about being open to new perspectives and evidence brought forward by one's team?  Surely our team, with whom we go to battle every day, is respected and trusted enough to help move our position and thus help the leader and the organization avoid an embarrassing or even a catastrophic failure?  Perhaps, but as the National Geographic article points out in respect of believing in science fact or not, a stronger impetus may be at play which prevents individual team members from bringing new information to light or supporting new perspectives.  At the end of the day, members of an executive team have powerful inducements - both tangible and intangible - to remain and be seen as strong members of the "tribe".  In the short-term in particular, there is often no up-side to disagreeing with a strongly held belief of the leader and far more disagreeable downside related to being "outside of the circle of trust".  Keep your head down, maybe the worst won't happen, maybe the leader will figure it out before it's too late, and at the end of the day maybe I'll escape any negative consequences in any event.

One final insight on why it's so hard to get the evidence and facts to speak.  While we may consider ourselves to be rational beings it is far more likely that we are going to be persuaded to a course of action or a change in direction by  charismatic appeal than through a balance sheet.  Some of history's most effective leaders have never been much bothered by the facts but they sure could ignite action through their own passionate commitment to a cause (however misguided).

As for the rest of us we have to decide whether the tribe is more important than the truth or whether the truth is more important than the tribe.  In either case there may be a price to pay.  Nobody said leadership was easy.  Leadership - good leadership - is about making hard choices, staying humble and being able to admit to and learn from mistakes.  It's about being open to the facts and the evidence.  It's about being open to change.

Do the facts speak to you?
______________________________

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.

Leadership at the Board Level

This past week I had the opportunity to be engaged with executives and board members of several different organizations.  Those conversations highlighted once again the critical role that boards of directors play in the success - or failure - of their organizations.  Some might believe the challenge of establishing and sustaining a high performing board is more acute in those circumstances where directors are unpaid as in the not-for-profit sector.  Alternatively, one might also hold to a belief that being unencumbered by financial motivations that the quality of commitment to governance duties might be at their best.  The reality that I have been exposed to is that good governance is the purview of neither the public or private sector and we have just as many examples of (spectacular) failures in one as in the other.

I last wrote about the impact and effect that the quality of leadership has on the success of an organization almost 2 years ago.  It struck me as a bit more than ironic and coincidental that this subject should be drawn to my attention in this past week.  But clearly some of the lessons to be learned remain relatively eternal.

Perhaps not surprisingly, many of us don't 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.  Collectively, we usually attribute great success or great failure at the feet of this one iconic or tragic figure.  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 it's the case that 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.  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.  Compounding a potentially poor selection process, too often inadequate attention is paid to orientation of new (and old) board members to their role as individual board members and as a comprehensive governing entity.  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 what they may be left to take in guidance 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 and strategic directions.  Failure to fully engage in this first are of major responsibility means that an organization can easily drift from its fundamental purposes.  And as "environmental" circumstances change so too does the organization move from objective to objective, without any clear plan and with major implications for public confidence and deteriorating staff morale.  Moreover, if there is no consensus amongst the Board as to vision, mission 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 their 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 does 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 evaluate - 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. 

A Board should manage 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. 

Finally, individual board members and Boards as a whole must be as diligent and committed to their own self-evaluation as what they demand from their CEO and operational teams.  Too often, my experience is that this accountability is given short shrift, is downplayed in the spirit of maintaining a "comfortable" working environment for the board members, or quite simply dismissed lest the process of evaluation unduly offend the voluntary or professional commitment of board members.  None of these excuses carry water and if board members expect results from its CEO, operational leaders and the organization as a whole, they must lead by example and professionally and diligently evaluate individual board member performance and overall board functioning on a regular basis.  Moreover, they must be prepared to actually deal with poor performance as well up to and including board member dismissal.

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
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.

Toxic Leadership

This past weekend I came across an article on toxic leaders written by Richard Gunderman, Chancellor's Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy at Indiana University-Purdue University.  I'd been contemplating a similar post but the author had so many good points that I decided to simply share and comment on his thoughts.  In this case, I've emphasized Gunderman's points in bold lettering and provided my supplementary comments with my personal experiences.

Gunderman posits that just as effective bosses can do considerable good good for an organization, toxic ones can inflict a great deal of damage.  In my estimation, its also true that the extent of the damage is not fully realized or understood until the toxic leader leaves or is let go.  Oftentimes the organization is left repairing the damage for some time after.

The author suggests that the first step to coping effectively with a toxic boss is recognizing that you have one.  Here are the 10 indicators that Gunderman provides to help you diagnose that your boss is probably toxic.

One.  When the toxic boss comes on board it feels as thought all fellowship and joy are being sucked out of the organization.  Like Dementors in Harry Potter, toxic bosses drain people of their passion, leaving nothing in their wake but a widespread feeling of despair.  Employees come to resemble mice who have been subjected to random electrical shocks, lapsing into a state that psychologists called learned helplessness.  As another former employee of a toxic boss put it, "It wasn't long before the whole organization took on a soulless feel."

Two.  Within weeks of the toxic boss's arrival, the mercury in the organization's "distrustometer" begins rising precipitously.  People begin eying one another with suspicion.  Lively meetings become deadened, as though no one would dare voice a divergent opinion.  According to one employee, "People stopped saying what they really thought. If they ever spoke their mind, they did so only after glancing over both shoulders to make sure no one was listening, and then they spoke in a whisper. It was like Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

This one really resonated with me from a couple of my past experiences.  I've had a "leader" who has either taken an active approach of "divide and conquer" as it related to their subordinates or actively disengaged from their team leaving agreements or disputes to fester.  If you take a lead from Patrick Lencioni's work, the absence of trust that is created (and fostered) leads to suppression of any constructive conflict, lack of common commitments and so forth.  By design or neglect, a toxic environment is established.

Three.  Power becomes consolidated in the hands of a few people who report directly to the toxic boss.  People who question this process are moved aside or completely out of the organization.  In many cases, the toxic boss achieves these ends not by direct confrontation, but like a subtle poisoner, delivering the lethal dose in tiny amounts that build up over time.

Four.  Toxic bosses quickly seize control of the pathways along which knowledge is shared.  Organization charts and reporting hierarchies are rearranged so that everything flows through one central hub, with few if any alternatives.  Without admitting to it, toxic bosses feel threatened by more open patterns of information flow.  As the former colleague of a toxic boss put it, "He sensed that if others knew what was really going on, his position, power and prestige would be undermined."

Five.  With a toxic boss, employees may have a hard time remembering why they came to work for the organization in the first place.  The true mission of the organization is obscured.  The toxic boss shifts everyone's attention to crasser metrics, such as revenue and rankings, and the organization's mission is treated as a mere tool for boosting results.

Sad but true.  I've been in one too many large organizations where the stated values seemed very remote from the actions that the "leader" or leadership team took on a regular basis.  The substantial disconnect led to more than just a bit of disengagement on the part of employees and seemingly intractable morale issues.

Six.  Toxic bosses leave others feeling manipulated and used.  Some are simply so insensitive that they do not appreciate the toll that their modus operandi takes on their colleagues, but others seem positively to revel in it.  Said an employee, "She seemed to believe that the only way to make herself bigger was to make the people around her feel progressively smaller."

Seven.  Soon after the toxic boss arrives, people begin disappearing.  Almost invariably, such departures go unannounced, completely devoid of fanfare or explanation.  One day they are there, and the next day they are gone, and only later do people learn that former colleagues were abruptly told one day to pack up their offices and hit the pavement.  The toxic boss will never express gratitude to their service, publicly or personally.

The other way that I've seen this reality play out is not in letting people go or marginalizing those with contradictory perspectives but rather in hiring individuals who will be more malleable to the toxic leader's directives.  This sometimes simply plays out with a feeling of personal obligation that a new hire has to the person who has hired them.  Alternatively, I have seen toxic leaders ensure that new hires ARE simply weaker or less experienced and, therefore, can pose no credible contrary points of view.  Overall, a great means to ensure the toxic leader remains unchallenged but hardly a tactic to build organizational strength and success.

Eight.  The toxic boss has no interest in what others have to say.  Some savvy operators appear to listen to other perspectives, but when it comes to action, their in-boxes are black holes.  They seem to believe that being an effective leader means being the center of attention.  Before long, their behavior at meetings begins to reveal their true stripes.  Said one former employee of a toxic boss, "She kept cutting other people off, belittling their contributions, and ended up listening to nothing but her own voice."

Nine.  The toxic boss starts to act like a playground bully.  People are treated not as sources of insight but as tools of implementation.  When they diverge from this path, the toxic boss reminds them how easily they could be replaced.  In short, the tools of persuasion give way to the instruments of coercion.  And such techniques are powerfully augmented by the enhanced sense of vulnerability that accompanies the swelling ranks of the disappeared.

I have vivid memories of getting a phone call "pep talk" from a toxic leader of mine that was a couple of rungs higher up the ladder than I.  Her relative distance from me didn't dissuade her from giving me a shout and probably reflected as much her lack of confidence in my direct supervisor as in myself.  At the time, my organization was going through significant - and noisy - change.  The essence of the pep talk was summed up in her parting words to me - "There are going to be casualties in this time frame, don't be one of them."  I understood my role and standing quite clearly.  I understood that I was quite an expendable and replaceable tool.

Ten.  Do you feel like your every move is being watched by unseen eyes?  Like you are in some kind of jail?  Do you feel like your boss is taking leadership lessons from Jeremy Bentham?  His creation, The Panopticon is a building with a watchman sitting at the center, looking out on all the inmates, who are arrayed around the periphery, each in a separate cell.  The inmates cannot see the jailer, generating a sense of constant surveillance.

For me this goes back to the feelings of mistrust created by the toxic leader ala Lencioni.  In those environments where a toxic leader's impact has been particularly "impressive", it becomes the unfortunate reality that no member of the team believes they can trust any other member of the team - peers or subordinates.  The environment becomes marked by extraordinary caution and guardedness.  The environment becomes risk averse and lacking in a desire for innovation and creativity.

At the end of this article - and my supplementary comments - we have been provided with one set of variables that describe what toxic leadership looks like.  What is lacking is how to effectively tackle it.  In fact, Gunderman seems to suggest that the best one can do is to COPE effectively with toxic leader.  Is this really all that we are left with as a tactic when dealing with a toxic leader despite the very real damage being done to an organization?

So I ask you, what's been your experience in dealing with toxic leadership?  More importantly, what steps did you and others take to effectively DEAL with a toxic leader?  I'm looking forward to your answers, supplemented by my thoughts, as a means to creating a response or tactics that might be useful to us all!
____________________________________________________________________

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.

Exceed Your Expectations

This past weekend I finally watched the movie "Invictus".  Despite the movie having been released in 2009 I had successively put off watching it until such time as I read the book.  Yes, I'm one of "those people".  In this case I bent my rule as I was 75% through the book before I relented and allowed myself the pleasure of watching the movie.

It is, of course, rather obvious that there is much to learn and discern from the life of Nelson Mandela and the leadership he showed to a fractured, hate-filled, and fearful country.  The fact that a man who had once espoused violence against the apartheid regime of South Africa, spent 27 years of the best part of his life in prison, and could then walk out and not merely renounce vengeance but become an icon of forgiveness is an astounding story.  It certainly would have been easy - and understandable - if he had chosen to simply lead his ANC supporters to a new future.  Instead he chose to become the leader of all 40 million South Africans regardless of skin color or tribal affiliation.

In this case, I found the movie quite consistent with the contents and key events recounted in the book.  If such is the case, what I came to understand about Mandela's leadership was that he was most powerfully effective and impactful not in large gatherings speaking to thousands but rather in small groups and one-on-one encounters.  In those situations he could connect with people at an individual level.  He sought that human connection, to build on authentic relationship and understanding of who sat across from him whether they be adversary or ally.  And it was truly the measure of the man and his leadership that he had an astounding ability to effectively and rather immediately disarm an adversary as well as any ally.

One of the scenes in the movie that had particular impact on me was the first meeting between President Mandela and the captain of the Springboks - the South African national rugby team.  An intimidating meeting for the captain, Francois Pienaar, to be sure.  Mandela immediately set the tone for a deeper conversation by showing authentic interest in the person before him.  This short exchange sets the stage for a more in-depth and meaningful exchange on leadership philosophies.  In this discussion on leadership, Mandela poses the challenge of how does a leader convince his followers, his team, to be better than they think they can be - "How do we inspire ourselves to greatness when nothing less will do."  How can a leader convince his followers to stand tall when all they want to do is rest?    

Mandela did not simply foist an impossible task on Francois Pienaar.  Mandela did not, as so many "leaders" are wont to, throw out shallow exhortations to "do better" or "win whatever the cost."  Rather, Mandela showed that he carried a common burden with Pienaar and that as President he held himself to the same high expectations, and would make the same effort, that he was placing on the Springboks.  Mandela stated clearly and directly that as President he too needed to exceed his own expectations in order to help South Africa fully realize its potential.  He shared his personal burden with Pienaar of having to not only unite a long-fractured nation but also lead it to the potential he saw in it.  In doing so, he also confided in Pienaar that there were days where he felt his efforts had not been enough and that even the President needed inspiration to do better.  As part of realizing the full potential of his nation and his people he believed in the need to leverage every possible avenue to achieve true unification.  In this case, he looked to inspire national unity by converting a reviled symbol of apartheid - the Springboks - to a shared symbol of unity.  In not so many words, he tasked Pienaar to lead his team to victory in the 1995 Rugby World Cup to be held on South African soil.  This after years of banishment from international competition and objective assessments that did not see the team advancing past the quarterfinals.

The fact that South Africa did not devolve into bitter civil war - and that the Springboks did in fact win the 1995 Rugby World Cup against all odds - is a clear testament to Mandela's unique leadership style.  Unlike what we might expect in the type of circumstances he faced, he was no grand orator in the tradition of Churchill.  He was authoritarian only when necessary, preferring to influence and build consensus wherever possible.  Fundamentally, he presents to me as an extraordinarily thoughtful, far-sighted and quiet leader.  He set grand goals that continued to guide his actions despite short-term setbacks.  He was prepared to make significant personal sacrifices - of his time, of his salary, and in wearing the hated colors of the Springboks to promote national reconciliation.  He was prepared to share his doubts and vulnerabilities with his followers.  In this regard, he was able to demonstrate his true understanding of the challenges that everyone faced in building a better future.  However, rather than use this as a reason to hold back from the challenge, he used it to build common bond with this followers.  His hope was that by common and extraordinary effort that he and his people could believe more of themselves and exceed their expectations.

The book and movie, as a testament to Mandela and his ability to help others exceed their own expectations, inspired me to reconsider my own leadership and the leadership of those I coach.  If a political prisoner of 27 years can overcome decades, nay hundreds of years, of racial divide and can inspire a nation to rise beyond its differences through his leadership and personal sacrifice then what can I - what should I - strive to achieve in my personal leadership endeavors??

What can you do to exceed your expectations?  What will you do to exceed your expectations?
____________________________________________________________________

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

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

What's in Your Back Pocket?

An economic downturn such as many people and industries are now facing in my province of Alberta or have faced in every other part of the world brings to the fore some very challenging questions.  As individuals we start to feel our shirt collars tighten a notch or two as we contemplate how we will weather the downturn, how long the downturn will last or indeed whether it will result in loss of job or our business.  Unfortunately, for too many of us, there can be a lot of whistling in the dark that manifests as wishful thinking or simple denial.  We hope that somehow the "grim reaper" will pass us by (again) this time.  We haven't established a contingency plan or a safety net that will confidently carry us through a downturn or possibly even a complete change in our career path. But, as I have often been told, hope is not a strategy.

I speak from personal experience in this regard.  I've been through many a restructuring and belt-tightening in my previous profession and quite frankly would have to admit that other than being flexible in terms of where challenge and opportunity took me I can't say that I had anything remotely that looked like a contingency plan.  Three years ago, when I completely changed careers, I didn't have a Plan B anything close to mapped out.  The fact that I am succeeding in making the switch is truly a combination of factors that probably have less to do with planning than with good networks and personal determination. I don't believe I'm unique in this regard.

If you will, consider the parallels to having your own emergency preparedness or disaster recovery kit for your household.  How many of us have alternate sources of power and water supply, adequate stocks of food and medicine to get us through several days of recovery from a natural or mad-made disaster, or a plan to ensure communication is sustained with family members in the event something causes you to be separated?  I hazard a guess based on what we have seen in our own backyards or not too distant communities that most of us are entirely unprepared for any significant disaster that could cut us off from a range of modern conveniences that we have come to rely on for our survival.  In like fashion, I suggest that most of us are entirely unprepared to suffer a modest or complete loss of our income overnight.

At this point, if you haven't established your leadership or career emergency preparedness kit, you might need to white knuckle it through the next change coming your way.  Perhaps if you are fortunate enough you already have sufficient funds in your savings account to get you through the next number of months or even a year until you secure the next job or can see your business venture recover.  Maybe all this time will be is another scare and you'll manage to get by with only suffering a few sleepless nights of worry.

All that being said, I believe there are a number of "tools" or "supplies that we should all have in our personal leadership emergency preparedness kit to allow us to navigate unplanned change as effectively as possible.  First, I believe we each should have our own strategic plan in place.  As leaders we often expend enormous time and effort leading strategic planning efforts for our own organizations or businesses, yet we spend relatively little time if any considering our own long-term plan.  Much like an organization's strategic plan, our personal plan should benefit from a regular period of objective and intensive self-reflection - what's important to us, what are our key goals, what are our forecasts, what are our strengths, what are our areas for investment or even divestment.  Most importantly, how will we equip ourselves to make the right change for the right reasons or how will we make the best of a bad situation thrown our way that still allows us to live according to our personal values and in pursuit of our life goals?  In short, are there multiple ways to obtain the same goal or set of goals.  Lacking any personal strategic coherence we will be as a ship tossed about on a storm-swept sea without a rudder.

Second, we should prepare for the inevitably of stormy seas with constant investment in ourselves as leaders.  Ongoing (and relevant) professional development and training has never been more crucial than in today's constantly evolving and dynamic business environment.  Knowledge, techniques, and technologies that were cutting edge yesterday are just as rapidly replaced or made irrelevant tomorrow.  Just as important, is understanding and appreciating the changing expectations and requirements of an ever more diverse workforce.  Long story short - as a leader you will have to continuously reinvest in your leadership and technical skills if you hope to be relevant, valuable and salable to your followers or customers.  Standing pat is falling backwards.  Leadership agility is today's guidepost.

Third, networks are a critical currency in today's ever-changing world.  Take advantage of opportunities to network and more importantly to build and maintain relationships with others within and outside of your current business environment.  As challenging and as time-consuming as it can sometimes be, it's important to appreciate that well-established and well-maintained relationships should be viewed as an investment in future opportunities.  Even though society has advanced there is still no doubt in my mind that "who you know" is just as important, if not more important, than "what you know".  In a time like this when leadership and technical roles now have hundreds of candidates applying for an opportunity - with many of them equally qualified - it won't simply be experience or knowledge that carry the day for you.  Rather, it may just come down to the strength and quality of relationships you have built with others over a period of years.

In like fashion, I also believe there is a tremendous benefit in "paying it forward", in the form of mentoring, connecting, and supporting others in your sphere of influence.  And in many of these circumstances, this means there could be no immediate - or any - form of payback to you.  Rather, I believe there is a service above self mentality that should come into play here that can amount to a form of planting seeds for a harvest to come later.  Just as with networking, however, for investments in others to truly pay off it really does have to be delivered as a genuine and authentic interest in others.  Nobody is going to give you much credit or future support if you take a very mercenary tone with them or explicitly set out the assistance as a "loan" to be recalled with interest at a later date.  It would be much like me telling my kids that while I will support them financially for the first couple decades of their life I expect at least that much support at the end of my life.  I doubt that this type of "support" would work and more likely would drive a wedge between us.

Those are what I consider to be some of the basics of your leadership emergency preparedness toolkit - a well-articulated personal strategic plan, constant honing and expansion of your skill sets, effective networking and relationship building, and an investment in the success of others.  Together - along with some sound financial planning - I believe not only can a leader weather the inevitable storms and tempests, they can come out stronger as it relates to their highest goals and aspirations. 

Management of unplanned change doesn't just have to be about survival.  It can be about softening the blows and being ready to come out the other side quicker and stronger than if you had just whistled a better tune in the darkness.
____________________________________________________________________

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.

Leading with Integrity

I was compelled to open up my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary to re-familiarize myself with the book definition of Integrity.  There were several reasons for doing so at this point in time most notably some of the political noises coming out from my provincial legislature in the past several months.  I was also reminded of some past and current realities afflicting colleagues in a former career that had also caused me heartburn and personal angst.

Further to Integrity then this is what I found:

in-teg-ri-ty  n 1: an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS  2: firm adherence to a code of esp. 

moral or artistic values:  INCORRUPTIBILITY  3: the quality or state of being complete and undivided:  COMPLETENESS  syn  1 see HONESTY  ant duplicity  2  see UNITY

I have to admit that this particular definition left me a bit flat.  Wasn't quite the passion or fire that I associate with the word Integrity.  Maybe it had something to do with my dictionary having been published in 1981.  Maybe integrity was now a dated concept??  But I preserved and went to today's font of all knowledge - Wikipedia - for an "up-to-date" definition:

Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. It is generally a personal choice to uphold oneself to consistently moral and ethical standards.^[1]

In ethics, integrity is regarded by many people as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy,^[2] in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

This version still left me thinking there was a void in the definition.  It struck me that the words lacked practical examples or parameters to make the picture of integrity come alive.  After all, in today's world doesn't every organization and leadership candidate tout integrity as a core principle?  If not prominently trumpeted in an organization's mission, vision and values statements it is usually given prominence in other public statements, codes of conduct, policies or other regular pronouncements.  Most leaders - like myself - usually identify integrity as being one of their top values.  Integrity is all around is and yet many find it wanting in so many or our leaders and organizations.

Do we - as leaders - truly demonstrate integrity when it counts?  When the going gets tough do we firmly adhere to our stated moral and ethical codes of conduct?  For example, if you have struck a deal with another party are you prepared to hold true to that commitment when circumstances change?  It's certainly one thing to be true to your word at the moment the agreement is signed or when times are good.  Do you have the strength of your conviction when your "business climate" changes?  Do you back away from your commitments or obligations?  When the going gets tough do you find reason or excuses to back away from this obligation entered into in good faith by both parties?  Isn't that the true test of integrity?  I'm left wondering how one can tout personal or organizational integrity when at the first sign of stress we stand ready to abandon our previous - voluntary - commitments.

I also find some leaders wanting in the integrity category when they "boldly" impose sacrifices on others they themselves are not prepared to make.  Numerous examples abound, both in the private and public sectors, of CEO's looking for ways to cut costs that intimately and significantly impact the vast majority of the workforce they lead and yet, when such efforts are successful, result in the maintenance of leadership perks or bonuses for the CEO.  And some CEO's have an amazing capacity for rationalizing how their benefit is really to the benefit of their organization.  Unfortunately, I have personally encountered some egregious examples of veritable shell games played by executives to justify or protect their income and perks.  Integrity under such circumstances - along with leadership credibility - are the clear losers.

Finally, I have to proffer my view that just as no great venture or successful organization is the result of the efforts of any one individual so too is it true that no one leader can violate self-stated or organizationally-touted codes of conduct without a little help from one's colleagues.  If we consider some historical precedents it is the rare occasion when a "rogue" leader acts alone to bend or break organizational codes of conduct, policies, procedures or, in extreme cases, even the law.  How many of us conveniently ignore or dismiss any missteps as "honest" mistakes or minor lapses in judgement?  Perhaps at times we honestly believe that.  Perhaps it's just easier to turn a blind eye.  Worst of all, perhaps we are actively complicit in the larger violations of our leader because some personal gain accrues to us - we too can share in getting a bonus or keeping our current position.  Perhaps our calculation is one that comes down to the simple perspective that to speak up or stand up runs the risk of becoming a martyr for doomed and idealistic cause - we rationalize our action (or lack of action) as being a meaningless sacrifice.

I leave you with an honest question - are you prepared to hold true to your stated values in good times but particularly in bad?  Is your word your bond or merely a device to suit a moment in time?

Are you a leader with and of integrity?  Or is integrity just an out-moded concept in today's age and am I but a modern-day Don Quixote tilting at windmills??
____________________________________________________________________

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.