Horrible leaders exist and yet organizations very often fail to realize the impact of poor leadership on those being led. Take a moment and look at organizational problems from a different point of view: the employee’s.
What happens when you promote the wrong person to lead your sales department (most often out of convenience or tenure with the company)? Your entire sales team stops receiving the necessary guidance and direction and start failing.
What happens when “Mr. Confrontational” is elevated to a position of authority? Even though he’s managed to impress ‘management’, everyone else around him suffers constantly.
What happens when the perfect academic with an impeccable scholastic resume (but no valid/relevant skills or experience) gets promoted to run global operations? The ENTIRE organization suffers. I saw this firsthand at my previous job with a Special Operations Command and I don’t have the words to describe how devastating his lack of knowledge and inferiority complex were to the entire organization. But I digress.
These people talk a good game. They manage up and promote themselves well. They have glossy resumes which highlight the many schools they’ve attended and the many certificates they’ve gathered. Oh, and they’ve sold everyone on their “vision” for the organization.
But that’s the problem: “vision” has turned into the excuse of the day.
I’ve seen “vision” in many forms. The 5-year goal, The Three chessboards, Key Areas of Influence…
David Allen wrote the amazing book Getting Things Done and I’d say it’s one of the top 10 productivity books I’ve read. Millions agree with me, Allen has sparked entire movements of people getting organized and being more productive utilizing his “GTD” system.
Allen says “Vision is not enough; it must be combined with venture. It is not enough to stare up the steps; we must step up the stairs."
It isn’t enough to TALK about walking up the stairs - you need to get up off your ass and start walking.
You must START. Every journey begins with a single step.
In the Special Forces Qualification Course (Q-course) there are painful yet relevant Peer Evaluations (Peer-Evals) that happen at key points in each phase of training.
These peer-evals are brutally honest and they serve only one function: to let the cadre know who we (as the subject’s peers) would choose to serve with us on a future Special Forces A-team.
That’s it. Would I choose to serve with someone again with the high potential of going into combat with them? It’s a simple premise, but it works. And, better yet, the peer-evals carry quite a bit of weight with the cadre.
At certain points in each phase of the Q Course you get counselled based on your overall performance to that point. A heavy part of this counselling is your peer-eval rating. And, yes, in case you are wondering, the cadre let you know exactly where you stand amongst your peers. To say this is often awkward is a massive understatement, but I’d never argue against its necessity.
Although the truth may hurt, it also motivates you to be better. More importantly it reminds you that each of your actions are being weighed by others. It doesn’t matter if you can impress the cadre with your knowledge on a given topic - if you don’t play your role (and carry your weight) on the team it becomes known. In other words, you must show that you have the skills and the experience to do your job effectively.
You learn that chains (and teams) truly are only as strong as their weakest link.
Selection and retention of employees is an extraordinarily complicated process. We all know this, and most of us are all willing to play our part in it: helping with the interview process, referring qualified people to the organization, etc. So why is it upper management can never admit to a hiring mistake? Aren’t probationary periods in place for a reason?
I’ve seen it time and again, despite organizational awareness the wrong person is in a key position of influence, management refuses to make the hard but necessary change.
Refusing to admit you made a mistake is much more painful in the long run than just admitting it, dealing with it and moving on. Hiring the wrong person is painful. Dealing with that person each day thereafter is excruciatingly more painful.
To come full circle, one excuse I often hear regards the external strategic organizational vision. I’m not implying that isn’t important, however, it behoves you to turn your eye inward and assess internal improvements necessary for the overall health of the organization.
Are you blind to your own organization’s internal failures?
Here’s a thought: how would you fare in an organizational “peer-eval”? How would your managers?
If the thought terrifies you, that’s not a good sign.
