Leadership Sleight of Hand

 I was thinking of yesterday's post, where I mentioned that leadership "provides purpose and direction", and have been mulling over the purpose and direction I want to see.

That, however, is a very large topic I'm not sure I'm ready to start. Or, well, I wanted to focus on something else first.

There are all sorts of anecdotes and pithy phrases on leadership, ones you may have heard before.

"Lead by example"

"Don't order anyone to do something you're not willing to do yourself"

"Mission first, people always"

But there's something a bit more foundational that I wanted to discuss. A bit of sleight of hand, you might say.

See - people will live up to your expections. (And down to them, too). This isn't just wishful thinking, either. If you weren't already aware, Harvard did a study where they told teachers they had identified students who were destined to succeed. And lo and behold! Those students did succeed. 

But there was no actual test, no real way of identifying who would succeed or not. The kids succeeded because the teachers thought they would, and so they supported the students more and it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This applies to more than just school children, and I will also state that subordinates are pretty good at picking up on their leader's thoughts and feelings.

So if you think all your people are incompetent and lazy idiots, chances are you are always complaining about how you're surrounded by incompetent and lazy idiots.

But if you think your people are all talented and brimming with potential? You may just find that they are, in fact, quite talented and brimming with potential.

It's not just wishful thinking, or manifesting reality with your thoughts. It's because when you create an environment meant to help people succeed, most of the time people will succeed. 

Think of every single one of your people as someone full of potential. If, for some reason, they don't meet your expectations, then ask yourself -

• Did I clearly communicate what's expected of them?
• Did I give them the resources they need to succeed? The training, the tools, the funding, the time?
• Did I check in with them, find out if there were any blockers I wasn't aware of? Did I then work to remove the blockers I can?

I would say that for the vast majority of people, just providing those three things will lead to success. And as for the rest?

Well, now you know that they are a bad fit for the role. NOT 'incompetent', or 'lazy'. NOT incapable. Just that the role you hired for them isn't a good fit for their talents and capabilities.

And, if you've done it right, it shouldn't be too hard to document it for HR. What is a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if not a way of documenting that you've clearly explained your expectations? Documented that you've given them the training and resources needed to succeed? Documented that you've met with them periodically and given them a chance to tell you what's going on with their life?

It's all a painful bureaucratic process that helps document what you should already be doing.

I also wanted to talk a little more about that third point, about blockers. This is probably where leaders have the most room for their own judgment, because blockers are not just things like 'the task relies on someone or something else'. It's not just trouble coordinating with an outside agency, or an inability to test some process because you're still waiting for approval to open the firewall, or some other obstacle within the company.

Blockers can also include "my employee is going through a divorce and unable to focus on work."

We all know that businesses expect employees to do their job regardless of whatever personal crap is going on, but it's also true that people sometimes have temporary situations that affect them, and they can still be valuable and skilled employees.

I've seen this in more tragic and dramatic situations in the military, as well as civilian life, and I will say that people remember how they're treated at times like that. They also remember how their fellow employees are treated.

That soldier who horrifically received news that his son fell into a river and drowned while he was in Iraq? And his ex's boyfriend jumped into the river after him and drowned too?

You'd better believe that getting that soldier back home as soon as possible was more important than any sort of contribution he could make in a combat zone.

And in a later civilian role - that employee who had a heart attack on our warehouse floor? Letting his co-workers take paid time off to process it, and having a grief counselor meet with them later that week was more important than trying to force them to meet business needs in the short term.

Blockers can also be personal issues, though how you handle them can differ depending on the time, situation, and company policies.

What I will say is that you won't get much loyalty by just haranguing people for not doing what you want.