A Thin Line Separates Leaders from Followers


“As I discussed options for resolving a major issue, I realized that my team was divided,” a manager said to me.

“What is your position?” I asked.

“I have an idea but I’m not too confident.  I’m sure the vocal members of my team oppose my view.”

“Have you clearly stated your position?”

“Probably not. At this point, I guess I’m inclined to go along with the strong voices on my team.”

Should leaders listen to their team members?  Yes.  Should leaders voice their positions?  Yes.  Should leaders persuade and be persuaded?  Yes.

Then how do leaders handle divisions created by muscular voices promoting contradictory solutions?  This dilemma, I believe, is the thin line between leading boldly and following aggressively.  Persons in leadership positions who simply strive to get in front of a parade are not leaders.

When facing critical issues, often more complicated than the tax code, real leaders birth their own vision and create their own parade.  They may observe, listen, consume data, consider several alternatives–even encounter multiple failures—but their passion, regardless of obstacles, promotes their unique dream.

Leaders who are blessed with insight plus high moral and ethical standards lead us to greatness.  Leadership that is absent of moral and ethical standards take us down a rabbit hole.

 

The Participative Planning Illusion


(Part 2 of 2 Parts)

After assuming his CEO role, Harris’s message to employees was, “I believe we have a lot of opportunities for bringing on new products and improving our promotions.”  Harris further explained that he had scheduled a retreat with his seven direct reports to firm up a strategic plan.

Prior to the retreat, Harris and his team researched industry trends, competitors’ strategies, and the company’s internal strengths and weaknesses.

During the retreat Harris unfolded his vision of investing heavily in product development and changing promotions to rely more on social media and celebrity sponsors.

After vigorous and extensive debates, team members enthusiastically agreed that they emerged from the retreat with sound plans for improving products and promotions.

Following the retreat, Harris and his team presented goals, timetables and metrics to all operating managers.  After making a few modifications based on managers’ suggestions, all divisions understood and readily accepted their responsibilities.

The antidote to the illusion of participative planning is for the leader to initiate a clear vision and strategies.  Of course, the leader should encourage suggestions and accept improvements.   Also, particular departments should have some latitude in how they execute their contributions to the plan.

 

The Participative Planning Illusion


(Part 1 of 2 parts)

“I believe in participative planning,” the new CEO announced.  “I’m asking all departments to submit their views on our mission, goals and strategies.”

The CEO organized an oversight committee to guide the process.  Over the next few weeks, employees throughout the company met and debated their future.  “Our challenge,” said one team leader, “is to focus on something we can agree upon.”

As a deadline approached, teams scripted mission and goal statements.  However, most teams focused on their particular interests; and as you might imagine, there was little coordination among the different functions.

As the next deadline beckoned, to finalize a plan they could agree upon, the oversight committee converted most suggestions into abstract statements, such as: “Our vision is to be the best at what we do.” “Our goal is to deliver high quality service.” “We want to expand.”

While employees were engaged in their planning frenzy, the CEO opened a new division, successfully introduced new services, and redefined dealer relationships. None of these ideas surfaced via the participative planning process.

Participative planning is an illusion.  Neither cars, smart phones, airplanes nor most other great ideas emerged from planning groups.  To think you can convert the suggestions of hundreds of employees into a coherent plan is simply unrealistic.