Leadership

When your team pushes back against one of your ideas, do you hear negativity or constructive criticism?

Let me take you into the Bald in Business headquarters — my home. It’s the place where my wife, Sarah, and I often contrast as a team. Like any couple raising a family, we often share opposing views on decisions that will impact our children. I tend to lead with enthusiasm, while my wife can be a bit more thoughtful in her approach. I’m willing to spend money and she is more apt to stick to the budget.

What causes tension in any team dynamic is the fallacy of taking rejection of your ideas as misconstrued resistance. Trust me, I often think long and heard about an idea before approaching Sarah about it at home. So, when I get to the right moment to run it by her, it’s a developed idea that has been given life (which explains why I am more excited), and when she raises questions, I can hear resistance and sometimes even negativity. I might think, “maybe she is just resistant to change,” or “maybe she is just risk-averse?”

Rejection of ideas can easily be misconstrued.

I have written previously about “overcoming the resistance,” which is absolutely an issue in organizational life. People, by and large, fear change. So yes, leaders have to keep trudging on when their followers are resisting.

But that doesn’t mean that all push-back is “resistance.”

Sarah questioning the purchase of something luxurious, like a golf-simulator for the basement, would be legitimate push-back because a golf-simulator is not in our budget (although it should be!). Thus, she isn’t being resistant, or even negative, when questioning that. Even more, she is being a loving wife by helping me make sound financial decisions.

Resistance comes later, when the evidence has been weighed, and action has begun. It often is inaction, when action is demanded. Or, simply negativity around the change in general.

But, “push-back” is different.

“Push-back” means people are looking for clarity. Or, that they still have questions and concerns that need to be addressed. Or they simply want to learn more.

Misconstruing these questions as people being “resistant or negative” is intellectually lazy and comes across as bullheaded. Clarifying questions can help you, and the organization, improve. The leaders that lean into the “push-back” will undoubtedly end up making better decisions in the end.

… another reason why I’m thankful for my loving wife.

Challenging truths for life and leadership

This week’s truth is simple to understand, but hard to implement:

Leaders genuinely apologize when they screw up.

For example, I used sarcasm yesterday in a meeting to make a point. While I still believe in the point I was making, my sarcasm embarrassed another leader in the room.

In retrospect, I should have not used sarcasm and had a private conversation with the leader. In essence, my behavior was abusing the power the position gives me.

I was 100% wrong in doing this.

Thus, I needed to apologize.

So, today I sought out this individual and apologized to them.

This experience reminded me that I need to choose my words wisely. And when I don’t, I need to own my actions.

I need to apologize.

Is there someone you need to apologize to?

Many organizations—ours included—hire outside consultants occasionally to assess their overall health. But observant leaders can analyze small behaviors and get a pretty good idea on their own.

Here are three examples:

How do people park? Are they parking like I do when I go to a sporting event, with an “easy out” mindset? Does that correlate to how hard they work during the day? Are they already thinking about how quickly, and how easily, they can get out of here?

Where do people sit? Recently, I was in one of our meetings and two people from one part of the business sat across the table from two people on another side of our business. I could sense conflict, that they weren’t all on the same page. And guess what–they weren’t.

What language do leaders use? I sometimes hear leaders use personal pronouns in describing what they are up to: “I did this,” with emphasis on the “I,” as if they deserve all the credit for progress. Or, sometimes language passing on decision-making: “YOU need to decide what we are to do,” as if no responsibility falls to the leader saying this. “Extreme ownership,” or personal accountability, is all about owning your responsibility, and not blaming others. To be sure, it still matters. But these comments are indicative of problems with their leadership. No one, after all, can do things entirely on their own (this week’s #TheoThursday is also about language – the use of profanity – stay tuned!).

Leadership is about awareness that leads to action. The leader needs to connect with, and lead, the person thinking just about “getting out of here.” The leader needs to bridge the gap between the two teams in conflict. And the leader also needs to lead themselves well, especially in modeling appropriate language. They should always share praise, and always accept blame.

As Pastor Andy Stanley says, “pay attention to the tension.” Being aware of the tensions present in the organization is the job of leadership.

Leading the organization toward resolving these tensions will help the organization become healthier.

Challenging truths for life and leadership.

This week’s truth is simple, and yet profound:

Everyone leads, and everyone is led.

Let that sink in.

For you can’t lead, if you are unwilling to follow.

Challenging truths for life and leadership

I heard the following quote during our church service this weekend:

“Leadership is about disappointing your own people at a rate they can absorb.”

Notice, leadership is not about being popular.

Rather, it is about taking people from their comfort to their discomfort.

From “here” to “there.”

Which, will eventually disappoint them.

You can read more about this idea here.

I’m suspicious when I hear mottoes like these:

Fail fast!

Fail often!

Failure is a good sign!

We need more failure!

Not all failure is created equal. Failure, after all, shouldn’t even be the focus.

Learning should.

Learn fast!

Learn often!

Learning is a good sign.

We need more learning.

See the difference?

The postscript:

An organization that never fails is also problematic. The point above is simply that we need to recognize that failure’s value is tied to learning. An organization proud to be “failing” when they are making simple mistakes is one headed for trouble. One whose prototype just “failed” because of an unknown circumstance, is on their way to success if they “learn” from that “failure.”

I recently heard Jay, and Wendy, Papasan interviewed on the Entreleadership Podcast. In the podcast, Jay delivered this #TuesdayT on goals:

“Most people know how to set goals, they just don’t know how to have relationships with them.”

Let that sink in this week.

And take your goals out for a date while you’re at it.

I believe in giving people I lead autonomy. I fear micromanagement. I trust people to perform, especially those that I know can.

That said, like everything else in life, too much of something is a bad thing.

In the written portion of my 360 review, completed in November, were these competing lines:

“Alex does not micromanage.”

“He needs to hold people more accountable at times.”

Welcome to the Dichotomy of Leadership.

Looks like I need to become a better leader!

As the authors argue in the book mentioned above, too much autonomy leads to all sorts of problems in an organization: Too many leaders, or people who feel like they can set the direction, poor execution (hence, the autonomy criticism), and silos (people so “free” that they don’t feel the need to consult with other groups).

(Note, micromanaging leads to several problems as well. So, it is by no means the answer).

My failure was not clearly outlining what the mission was. Sure, direct reports knew what I expected to a degree. But they had latitude. They had freedom to focus on several initiatives, rather than clarity on the mission the COMPANY needed them to execute.

Worst, they had the freedom to delay.

To counteract this, and to create the organizational clarity, I am spending time writing KRAs (Key Result Areas) that outline (bluntly), what the focus should be, and when things must be accomplished.

As the leader, it is my job to construct the game-plan and ensure that the team is focused, and executing it. What distinguishes this kind of leadership from micromanagement is that it still empowers the individual the to execute the mission in a way that aligns to their strengths.

With clarity on the mission, it is also easier to hold people accountable.

The fact that things were, to a certain extent, “murky,” last year, is one of the reasons I received the criticism stated above.

Lesson learned.

Onward.

I had to cancel lunch with a friend of mine last week.  Her response was enlightening:

“Give yourself the time back. Even if you just take it for yourself.”

Today’s truth:  Leaders rest.

It is that simple.

Find time to rest this holiday season.

I will do the same.

The truth: Leaders shouldn’t strive to be popular. Legends became legends by sacrificing popularity for the sake of doing what was right.

Who was the most unpopular President of all-time? Gallup might list several modern Presidents, but what about Abraham Lincoln? How many other Presidents saw half the country secede from the Union?

Martin Luther King Jr. was also not very popular when he was assassinated in 1968. In fact, according to a Harris poll, 75% of Americans disapproved of MLK in 1968.

Yet, how many leaders would list either Lincoln or MLK as leaders they would like to emulate?

The truth is we will never emulate them seeking popularity.

Leadership always challenges status-quo, and always initiates positive change.

The reality is that these things are never popular.

The reality is that resistance always follows.

Lincoln saw emancipation as non-negotiable.

MLK envisioned “the city upon the hill,” where children of all races played together.

Neither were willing to compromise.

Neither gave in to the resistance.

Both were assassinated because of it.

And both are legends today because of the change they initiated.

Leadership has never been a popularity contest.