Matthew Richter posts daily comments in LinkedIn—well, almost daily. You can follow him and join the conversation by going to http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-richter-0738b84.
For the benefit of our readers, we decide to compile and reprint some of his provocative pieces from the past. Let us know what you think.
Integrity and Leadership
Is Integrity required to lead? Integrity is often a principle identified as essential for leaders. This is highly problematic. Not because I oppose having integrity. I am keen for the people around me to behave ethically. But, as a trait or behavioral category for leadership, I wonder what the heck it means. The OED provides several definitions. Most pertinent is, “Freedom from moral corruption; innocence, sinlessness.” Or, “Soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue; honesty, sincerity.” A quick survey of several agreed upon great leaders lied frequently, manipulated colleagues and maneuvered politically with anything but innocence. FDR, Lincoln, Churchill, Gandhi, Steve Jobs. Eisenhower had a long-term extra-marital affair, as did many US Presidents. Certainly not integrity as defined. Which also begs the question, is personal moral corruption irrelevant to professional performance? Too many agreed upon great leaders in history fail the integrity label. Or, their application requires poetic license. So, how can we include this value as essential to the definition? Leadership can have many aspirational attributes, but they are wishes. And, can leaders actually lead without a little bit of deception and moral vagueness? History implies, no.
Leadership Behaviors.
Flexibility: The ability to change goals, rules, strategies, and metrics of success. To seize opportunities as they arise. To adjust based on the context and situation.
Perseverance: To stick with a vision, stick with a plan. To see things through. Be strong in the face of adversity.
Influence/ Inspiration/ Manipulation: The ability to get people to do what you want them to do without feeling coerced or controlled (control works in the short run, but leads to failure in the long run).
Visionary/ Strategic: Sees the big picture and at a high level figures out how to get there. (The most traditional of characteristics.)
Fits the Times: Understands the current landscape, context, and values of the era and appears to be a part of it. May in reality be ahead of one’s time, but has to appear to fit in— even at the edge.
Paradoxical: Can easily accept conflicting values, contradictions, and flip flopping as needed.
Predictable: Followers follow not out of fear, but out of alignment. They can mostly predict their leader’s choices.
Heroic: Maybe the most controversial..., but in the West, at least, we like our leaders to be saviors riding in on horseback to save the day. What did I miss? What do you think?
Your Participants
You can’t trust your participants! Asking your audience to rate you has many benefits, including whether they will retain you as a trainer or hire you or fire you. But this is merely a popularity contest, not a real measure of effectiveness. Routinely people vote against their best interests. Or, they are dissatisfied as a result of conflicting agendas and differing criteria for success. Participants know little or next to nothing about learning science. Most of the time, the impact a workshop will have isn’t visible until later, on the job. Yet, we insist on weighing participants’ feedback significantly high when judging the worth of a program. Sure, learner experience shouldn’t be dismissed, but nor should it outweigh metrics of performance later. A good, non-related example is congestion pricing for managing traffic in large cities. In London, the mayor at the time, Ken Livingstone, was reviled in 2003 when he set up a pricing model in central London. He was even sued! But he was right. Within a year, vehicles entering the zone dropped 18 percent, delays were reduced by 30 percent, average speed rose by over 10 percent. Participants should be limited to discuss what they are qualified to discuss: their experience. Whether something is effective, should be determined by the experts.