Research has shown that many of the most effective leaders are humble. Although determined to achieve their vision, they are more interested in getting the job done and building something great than press clippings or personal credits. Many leaders find themselves caught in political battles, expending their energies on trying to move personal agendas forward instead of driving toward what is best for the organization. Empowering leaders, however, are more effective when they set their ego aside, let go of power politics and personal agendas, and professionally focus on building organization and human capabilities.

Level 5 Leadership

In his book, Good to Great, author Jim Collins performed an in-depth study of companies that proved to be far more successful than their more traditional counterparts. He found that one of the distinguishing features of these companies was the personal nature of their leaders, which he labeled Level 5 Leadership. The other levels of leadership (1-4) are categories of people who fit into various traditional leadership stereotypes.

Collins wrote, “Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.” (pp. 12-13)

Level 5 Leadership is also characterized by subjection of personal interests to the welfare of the larger group or organization. In addition, this type of leader also demonstrates ferocious determination to achieve vision and goals. Level 5 leaders are willing to make whatever sacrifices are necessary for the success of the company. They tend to discount their own contributions when their organizations succeed, and also insist on personal responsibility if their organizations are performing poorly.

Building Organization Capability

In the spirit of level 5 leadership, empowering leaders become more effective when they set their ego aside and unselfishly focus on building organization capabilities. These leaders empower the organization by identifying and developing key capabilities critical to accomplishment of the vision and competitive strategy. A key capability for a growing software company, for example, is often the need to develop a network of partners in the industry who are connected to dominant potential clients. Developing such a network enables the organization to market through these trusted relationships, achieving desired strategy and growth both quickly and on a broad scale. This kind of unselfish and focused leadership empowers the organization to move forward in significant and strategically critical ways.

Building Human Capability

Empowering leaders also effectively develop human capabilities within the organization. Delegating key responsibilities, brokering major change initiatives within the organization, and sponsoring capable rising stars are all unselfish ways leaders can promote individual and organization development.  These leaders know that if they can find talent within the organization and match it up with emerging strategic opportunities, it creates excitement and energy, and will move the organization deliberately forward.

Effective leaders empower employees in the organization by providing clear objectives, key resources, training, and support for initiatives that are mission critical. When employees know the limits of the playing field, and are given the resources, tools, and responsibility to make things happen, it turns them loose to  take the initiative and move their part of the organization to the next level. This is one of the most powerful ways empowering leaders motivate employees and build commitment in the organization.

Summary

Research shows that great level 5 leaders blend professionalism and humility to grow their companies patiently and successfully. When empowering leaders set their personal and political ego agendas aside and develop organization and human capabilities, they are more effective as leaders and lift their companies to new heights. These leaders empower the organization by identifying and developing key capabilities critical to accomplishment of the vision and competitive strategy. They develop human capability by sponsoring initiatives, promoting individual development, and providing clear objectives, resources, training, and support.  Perhaps most importantly, as these leaders unselfishly develop organization and individual capabilities, they not only improve their organization’s performance, but build the shared commitment and confidence of everyone involved.

An important practice of empowering leaders is that they build and maintain personal relationships with their followers–relationships based on trust. Leadership is about relationships, and empowering leaders are aware of their impact on others and seek to communicate and behave in ways that build trust.

Are You Trustworthy?

A short assessment of trust in your organization and the extent to which you are perceived as trustworthy can help identify the level of trust you enjoy as a leader in your organization. How you answer the following questions is directly related to the nature and quality of trust relationships you have built around you in your organization.

Q:  To what extent does trust exists in your organization?

Q:  To what extent can people trust you to achieve business goals?

Q:  To what extent do you keep commitments and act with integrity?

Q:  To what extent do you act in trusting ways?

Q:  To what extent do people feel like you care about them and have their interest at heart?

If you answer these five questions “to a great extent,” you have likely built strong relationships of trust around you. If the answers are “to some extent” or “to a very little extent,” then there is significant opportunity for you to strengthen relationships of trust around you.

Defining Trust

You can have a wonderful vision within the organization, but if trust is low, you will fight an uphill battle to implement that vision, because it takes the collective effort of many people to accomplish organization goals. At the Center for Organizational Design, we define trust as “confidence in your relationship with others.” This trust consists of three parts:  Confidence in the competence, integrity, and fairness of others. When we trust someone, then, we believe the following about them:

1. They are capable of achieving business results.
2. We can count on them to do what they say.
3.  That person cares about our interest and well being as their own.

Weakening or Strengthening Trust

When trust is low, relationships are characterized by alienation, competition, and conflict. If there is a high level of alienation, competition and conflict in your organization, you can be sure that trust is low. When there is a high level of openness, collaboration, and good will, you can be sure that trust is alive and well in the organization.

Whether trust is high or low, empowering leaders can play a significant role in building trust within the organization.

What Weakens Trust: First, leaders can help identify behaviors and attitudes that weaken trust and help followers be aware of how they may be undermining trust in the organization. Some common behaviors and attitudes that weaken trust are: participating in win/lose competition; betraying confidences; putting personal interests above organization or other individual needs; acting in untrusting ways; professional incompetence; lack of integrity and predictability; or hogging scarce resources. When leaders can help teams or competing divisions and units talk about the level of trust and identify weakening behaviors, people can often commit to stop acting in untrusting and competing ways. This simple discussion and agreement helps people let go of negative feelings and begin to establish relationships from a more neutral ground.

What Strengthens Trust: The second thing leaders can do to build trust is to help players identify behaviors and attitudes that strengthen trust. Some common behaviors and attitudes that strengthen trust are: Acting in trusting ways; keeping confidences; putting organization and other group or individual needs above your own; doing what you say; being professionally competent; sharing information openly; willingness to share scarce resources; showing personal concern for others; treating others with respect and fairness; willingness to collaborate; and creating win-win situations. Besides identifying and discussing ways to build trust, effective and empowering leaders act in trusting ways, ask for the commitment of others to do the same, and then hold them accountable in individual interactions, in their teams, and in the larger organization.

Building Personal Relationships of Trust One-On-One

The one thing leaders have most control over is the nature of their one-to-one relationships in the organization. So possibly the most significant impact empowering leaders can have on the organization is to improve the level of trust in their one-on-one relationships with others. Following are three steps to help you do this:

1.  Evaluate the level of trust you believe exists between you and each member of your staff, rating each relationship as high, medium or low.
2. Identify a few key low-trust relationships you want to improve.
3. Develop a plan for how you will build more trust in these relationships over the next few months.

Summary

Leadership is about relationships.  Empowering leaders seek to communicate and behave in ways that build trust. The extent to which you model trust, achieve business goals, keep your commitments, and show personal concern for others will directly influence the level of trust in the organization you lead.

Trust is defined as “confidence in your relationship with others—confidence in their competence, fairness, and integrity. As an empowering leader, you will become more effective if you can:

1. Identify and minimize behaviors and attitudes that weaken trust in the organization.
2. Identify and reinforce behaviors and attitudes that strengthen trust in the organization.
3. Evaluate and strengthen the one-on-one relationships of trust you have with those that work directly for and with you.

Effective leaders make their vision a reality by sharing it with others and gaining others commitment to achieve it. The purpose of this article is to discuss two ways empowering leaders make their vision a reality:

1. They are very clear about their vision of the future organization; and
2. They have a driving passion to achieve it.

Getting Clear About Their Vision

Great leaders are not more talented than the majority of people, but they are generally more clear about what they want and what their vision of a new and improved organization looks like. In our consulting practice over the years, we have worked with many leaders to help them clarify their vision. When they are unclear about their vision, it makes it difficult to share it with others or to ask them to work toward it. Sometimes it takes a lot of thinking and discussion to clarify the vision of the future. In other cases, leaders intuitively know what they want and are able to express it. Either way, when leaders are able to identify their vision, and make it concrete for others, it opens the door to share it with them and ask for their commitment to make it happen.

Consider the power of a clear vision: Abraham Lincoln dreamed that his countrymen could be free from slavery before he, as President, helped the country stop the practice of slavery. Similarly, a great architect will create a blueprint of a building way before he begins to build it. The first step for leaders desiring to achieve their vision is to outline and simplify it so they can share it with others.

Following are a few questions that help leaders define their vision:

• What is my role in the organization?
• What capabilities and skills do I bring to the organization?
• What do I believe will make this organization great? What results will we need to achieve?
• What capabilities and skills will the team/organization need to develop?
• How can I contribute to making the organization great?
• What will need to change to accomplish this vision?

Once their vision is clear, empowering leaders also focus on outcomes as they share their vision with others. When they identify what will be different in the new organization and what results it will achieve, they turn people loose to begin to operationalize it, as they set goals and objectives to achieve the desired results. This process of translating vision to results, goals, and objectives, allows employees to see how they can achieve the vision and empowers them to take responsibility for moving it forward.

Cultivating Passion for the Vision

Empowering leaders have a driving passion to achieve their vision. They don’t allow circumstances or obstacles to determine their success, but instead focusing tremendous will to achieve goals and objectives which will move their vision forward and achieve desired results.

It is one thing for leaders to have passion burning inside them; it is quite another to ignite that same passion in others. When the organization starts working toward the vision, there will be challenges and setbacks. Effective leaders are determined and don’t give up easily when resistance and opposition appear. They use their vision to help others rise above adversity, setbacks and even failures. They do this by capturing the hearts and minds of other leaders and implementers, and inspiring them to believe in the vision and find new ways to achieve goals and accomplish more.

President John F. Kennedy articulated a vision that mesmerized the United States with his “Man on the Moon” address in 1961, he knew that the vision would have to transcend partisanship, politics, and military interests to generate the sustained motivation necessary to accomplish such a feat. In his own words he said:  “This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.” (May 25, 1961)

Though Kennedy did not live to see his vision realized, the prospect of putting a man on the moon captured the hearts and minds of this nation. His challenge extended beyond his administration and unified the efforts of countless scientists, politicians, and government contractors. That inspiring, faith-demanding vision functioned to make the American Space program the most advanced in the world by 1969. This success also typifies many aims of visionary and empowering leaders: cooperative effort and accountability, motivation that outlives the leader’s presence within the organization, and potential accomplishment that cements a collective purpose and identity. Nearly a decade later, when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, his statement echoed the transcendent scope of what the country sought to do:  “That’s one small step for man…one giant leap for mankind.”

Summary

Empowering leaders are very clear about their vision for the organization and move forward with confidence. As they share their vision with others in the organization, they focus on outcomes, and ask others to help achieve the goals and objectives leading to the vision. Empowering leaders also have a driving passion to achieve their vision. When difficulties and resistance appear, they move forward with determination, and use the vision to overcome obstacles by inspiring other leaders and implementers to believe in the vision and find new ways of achieving goals and accomplishing more.  When others in the organization believe in the vision and find new ways of accomplishing more, the vision begins to live and take on a life of it’s own. This is the power of empowering leadership.

Truly accomplished leaders are people who have a compelling vision and the ability to rally others to make that vision a reality. However, we know from studying leaders like Ghandi and Mao, Roosevelt and Stalin, that leaders use different kinds of power to accomplish their visions. I want to distinguish between two forms of power:

1. Control-over power (controllers)
2. Influence-with power (empowerers)

Control-over power is probably the most prevalent form of power experienced by man throughout history. It is power that is imposed from without. Such leaders believe they have to control people in order to accomplish organizational results. These leaders may accomplish much, but often at a high price. At best, their tactics result in unthinking followers who learn to keep their heads down and do the minimum possible to avoid getting into trouble. At worst they create an environment of smoldering ill-will or even malicious compliance.

Influence-with power, on the other hand, begins with a very different set of assumptions. These leaders care about the needs and interests of their followers as well as their own. Rather than imposing control from without, they create an environment that elicits motivation and commitment from within. They seek mutually beneficial goals and inspire people to better levels of performance out of self-interest rather than force.

I believe that lots of leaders in today’s organizations are “controllers.” They believe they know what is best and so impose an agenda on people and expect compliance.

Here is an example, taken from the classic movie A Few Good Men. In the following scene, Jack Nicholson, plays the role of the top marine at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Three men are meeting in the Colonel’s office-the colonel, seated at his desk; Lieutenant Colonel, seated in front of the Colonel’s desk; and a Sergeant, standing.

Colonel: Who the **** is Private William T. Santiago?

Sergeant: A member of Second Platoon Bravo, Sir.

Colonel: Yeah. Well, apparently he’s not very happy down here in Shangri-la because he’s written letters to everybody but Santa Clause asking for a transfer. And now he’s telling tales about a fence-line shooting. Matthew? (looking at the second in command)

Lieutenant: I’m appalled sir.

Colonel: You’re appalled. This kid broke the chain of command and ratted on a member of his unit to say nothing of the fact that he is a U.S. Marine and it appears he can’t run from here to there without collapsing from heat exhaustion. What ***** is going on in Bravo company Matthew?

Lieutenant: Colonel, I think it would be better to hold this discussion in private.

Sergeant (speaking to the Lieutenant): That won’t be necessary. (Turning towards the colonel) I can handle this situation, sir.

Lieutenant: The same way you handled Curtis Bell?

Sergeant starts to speak.

Lieutenant: Don’t interrupt me, Sergeant. I’m still your superior officer.

Colonel: And I’m yours, Matthew. I want to know what we’re going to do about this.

Lieutenant: I think Santiago should be transferred off the base immediately.

Colonel: He’s that bad, huh?

Lieutenant: Not only that. But word of this letter is bound to get out. He’s going to get his Ass whipped.

Colonel: Hm. Transfer Santiago. Yes. I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure that’s the thing to do. Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Let’s transfer the whole squad off the base. Let’s—on second thought, Windward. Let’s transfer the whole Windward Division off the base. John (speaking to Sergeant), go get those boys down off the fence, they’re packing their bags. TOM (speaking to guard outside room).

Tom (opens door and enters the room): Sir.

Colonel: Get me the president on the phone. We’re surrendering our position in Cuba.

Tom: Yes, sir.

Colonel: Wait a minute, Tom. Don’t get the president just yet. Maybe we should consider this for a second. (Dismissed Tom.)

Tom: Yes, sir.

Colonel: Maybe, and I’m just spit-balling here. Maybe we have a responsibility as officers to train Santiago. Maybe, as officers, we have a responsibility to this country, to see that the men and women charged with its security are trained professionals. Yes, I’m certain I read that somewhere once. And now I’m thinking Colonel Markinson that your suggestion to transfer Santiago, while expeditious and certainly painless, might not be, in a manner of speaking, the American way. Santiago stays where he is. We’re going to train the lad. John, you’re in charge. If Santiago doesn’t make four-six, four-six on his next proficiency and conduct report then I’m going to blame you. Then I’m going to kill you.

Sergeant: Yes, sir.

Lieutenant, rising from his chair: I think that’s a mistake colonel.

Colonel: Matthew, I think I will have the word in private with you now. (Turning to Sergeant) John, that’s all. Why don’t we meet at the “O” club and have lunch and we’ll talk about the training of young William.

Sergeant: I’d be delighted to hear any suggestions that you might have sir.

Colonel: Dismissed.

Sergeant: Yes sir.

Colonel: Matthew, sit down, please. What do you think of Kendrick (sergeant)?

Lieutenant: My opinion of him has nothing to do whatsoever…

Colonel: I think he’s pretty much of a weasel myself. But he’s an awfully good officer and in the end we see eye-to-eye on the best way to run a Marine Corps unit. We’re in the business of saving lives, Matthew. That is a responsibility that we have to take pretty seriously. And I believe that taking a marine who is not quite up to the job and shipping him off to another assignment puts lives in danger.

Matthew begins to stand.

Colonel: Sit down, Matthew. (Colonel stands and sits on desk right in front of Matthew.) We go back a while. We went to the academy together. We were commissioned together. We did our tours in Vietnam together. But I’ve been promoted up through the chain with greater speed and success than you have. Now, if that’s a source of tension or embarrassment for you, I don’t give a ****. We’re in the business of saving lives, Lieutenant Colonel Markinson. Don’t ever question my orders in front of another officer. (Colonel walks out of room.)

You’ve probably seen the movie. In the end, Private Santiago dies in an attempt to “train” him. Officers on the base cover this up to protect the honor and loyalty of the marines, but the truth is eventually exposed and Colonel prosecuted.

I’ve read this transcript to the students of many leadership training courses. It leads to a pretty good discussion around the following questions:

• What do controllers do to accomplish their objectives?
• What is the impact of their behavior?
• What beliefs are behind a controller’s behavior?

Most people can identify with this scenario, not because they’ve been in the military. (In fact, many military leaders use a much more collaborative approach than demonstrated here.) But most people have worked for leaders who are controlling.

Inevitably they describe that controllers tell, dictate, demand, believe they know best, fail to listen, expect compliance and so on. The consequences are far reaching. People almost universally describe the negative impact of this style of leadership. It causes them to feel frustrated, demoralized, and insignificant. People learn to put up with such leaders by keeping their heads down, watching the clock and staying out of trouble. Their hearts aren’t in what they do. They don’t enjoy their work (or workplace). They are simply going through the motions. Although not all controlling tactics are as extreme as those used by the Colonel, the effects are similar and contribute to a negative work environment.

Perhaps the fatal flaw of controlling leaders is their pride. They believe that they know more than others. They’re not open to learning or being influenced. They make positive assumptions about their own abilities and negative assumptions about the ideas, motivation, or capability of people around them.

I’ve consulted with a number of organizations with controlling leaders. Most of these leaders bring a great vision and “know-how” to their companies. My objective is to help them recognize the downside of their controlling style and help them learn that they’ll best fulfill their visions as they become more collaborative.

These leaders need to learn that no one is smarter than everyone. They need to understand that winning requires collaboration. They need to view employees are partners who truly want to contribute. They need to change their leadership from being the “hero” to creating a context in which teams of people share accountability to make great things happen. This is what empowering leadership is all about.

I’ve seen that change happen. If open to feedback, I’ve helped a number of managers through this transition by giving them some fairly simple communication tactics.

I ask them to seek feedback from their people. “What do I (or the company) do that supports you?” “What do I (or the company) do that gets in the way?”

I ask them to start listening (seek first to understand), before responding with answers and solutions.

And I ask them to shift from solving problems to facilitating the solution of problems by asking questions such as “What are the outcomes you/we want from this situation?” “What options do you see?” “What can you do?” “What support do you need from me?” “Who is accountable for what and by when?”

By using such tactics, leaders don’t give up power. They actually increase their power by leveraging their most important asset—the people around them on whom they depend and who are essential to realizing their goals.

In the long-run, “influence-with” leadership offers far-reaching advantages over “power-over” leadership. It is this leadership that builds trust and goodwill and taps into the collective genius of all employees.

 

 “Leadership is the critical force behind successful organizations. To create vital and viable organizations, leadership is necessary to develop a new vision of what they can be and then mobilize the organization to change towards that vision.” –Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders, Strategies for Taking Charge, 2007

Leadership (from the senior suites to the front line) is a primary driver of business success. Leaders set the tone, define direction, design the architecture, build the culture, execute plans, monitor results, manage resources, develop people, and so on. In short, leaders touch and shape every aspect of organizational life. And yet doing this is more challenging than ever, due to the accelerating pace of change and escalating complexity of the world around us.

The leadership paradigm that worked for centuries is no longer adequate to manage in today’s fast-paced and complex times. The traditional leadership model is based on hierarchy and such principles as centralization, uniformity and control. Such principles were useful during the early days of the industrial revolution when management had to manage and control masses of untrained people in rather predictable and stable markets.

But that has changed. We now live in a digital age in which technological innovation changes the playing field every couple of years, customers and employees are educated and have many options, markets are global, and competition fierce. So leaders everywhere are rethinking what it means to lead.

Leadership, in today’s world, is about harnessing the collective genius of people. It is about rallying everyone behind the mission and vision and creating the conditions in which everyone performs at the peak of their ability. Effective leaders tear down walls. They bring people together. They build trust. They transform attitudes and behavior. They remove the barriers that keep people from being engaged and effective.

Companies such as W.L. Gore and Associates, Groupon, Google, Zappos, HCL Technologies, Great Harvest Bread Company, DaVita and many others are challenging traditional assumptions about leadership and creating high performance companies, among the best in their industries. Leaders of these companies are changing the leadership paradigm.

Here are some of the new assumptions that we believe will guide innovative companies in the future.

Assumption #1: No one in the organization is smarter or faster than everyone. Intelligence and wisdom exist at all levels of the organization. Certainly one person cannot think for nor do the work of many. The challenge, therefore, is to create a work culture that taps into the collective intelligence of the workforce rather than relying on a few people at the top. Research proves that the more the diversity of opinions and input, the better will be your decisions. (See the best-selling book, The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki.)

Assumption #2: Success in today’s world requires collaboration. We are interdependent. The work of an organization can only be accomplished by many people working together. Collaboration drives innovation, customer responsiveness, and speed. In fact, the number one finding, from IBMs most recent survey of 1700 top executives from around the world, is that CEOs “are creating more open and collaborative cultures — encouraging employees to connect, learn from each other and thrive in a world of rapid change. Collaboration is the number-one trait CEOs are seeking in their employees, with 75 percent of CEOs calling it critical.” (Leading Through Connections: Insights from the Global Chief Executives Study, IBM, 2012)

Assumption #3: People work for customers not bosses. Customers are the beneficiaries of the work of employees. This is where the ultimate accountability should lie. The better the line of sight and more information employees have about their customers, the better they’ll perform. For that reason, many innovative companies are either reducing the number of managers or even eliminating them entirely. (See my blog post “Let’s Fire All the Managers.”) I’m not suggesting you get rid of all your managers. I am suggesting that you strengthen the relationship between your people and those whom they are in business to serve.

Assumption #4: The best leaders are empowers and not controllers. In traditional organizations, managers set goals, make decisions, measure progress, evaluate performance, etc. They are the thinkers and planners, and employees are the doers. Consequently, they fail to tap the tremendous intelligence and creativity of their people. The new leadership paradigm changes to role of leaders from controlling people to creating the context in which teams of people are able to make decisions, solve problems, and significantly contribute to the mission or goals of the organization.

Assumption #5: Workers are partners and not subordinates. People want to succeed. They want to make a positive contribution. The motivation doesn’t have to come from without. By thinking of employees as partners rather than tools or costs on a balance sheet, leaders are able to remove barriers and create an environment that unleashes the potential of their people.

Do you want to improve the leadership in your organization? It begins with understanding your assumptions about good leadership. Then you can measure where you are, determine where you want to go, and decide how you’ll get there. Take some time to ponder a few questions:

1. What are your current assumptions about good leadership?
2. How would you describe the current leadership practices within your organization (senior management, middle management, front line) and their impact on employees?
3. What leadership attitudes and behaviors do you think will be required to achieve outstanding and sustainable results in the future?
4. How will you help your leaders get there?

There is little work more important than developing your leaders. Inherent in doing so, in today’s world, is helping them adopt a new paradigm and set of assumptions about the meaning of good leadership.

I’m taking my title from an article written by Gary Hamel in the December, 2011 edition of The Harvard Business Review. In the article, Hamel reports on the practices of Morning Star, a tomato processing company founded in 1970 with 400 employees and over $700 million in annual revenue. You’ve likely used the company’s products since they handle around 30% of the tomatoes processed in the US each year. In an industry that has grown by about 1% in the past 20 years, Morning  Star’s revenues have consistently been in double digits.

However, what sets Morning Star apart from so many companies, in and outside its industry, is the fact that it has no managers. In fact, the company is a pioneer in unusual practices:

• No one has a boss
• There are no titles nor promotions
• Employees negotiate responsibilities with their peers
• Everyone has the authority to spend the companies money
• Each person is responsible to acquire the tools needed to do his/her work
• Compensation is determined by peers

I recall my first work experience as an intern at an innovative Proctor & Gamble manufacturing plant. The company was one of the first to implement high performance work systems. One of their innovations was self-directed work teams, an uncommon practice for its day. I was impressed that some of the manufacturing teams were leaderless. The teams had evolved to such a high degree that team members took responsibility for all aspects of their production. A supervisor looking over their shoulders, making decisions and directing their work added no value.

But a whole company?

The notion is virtually inconceivable to the employees (and certainly managers) of most corporations.  Perhaps, one might reason, it is possible when work is simple and stable and employees hand-selected for their social and emotional maturity. But it’s hard to imagine a company without leaders given the complexity of coordinating hundreds of disparate contributions into a single product.

The fact that Morning Star (and other notable companies such as W.L. Gore and Associates) have accomplished this turns some of the tenets  of scientific management, as espoused by such thinkers as Max Weber and Frederick Taylor, upside down. It challenges our assumptions about the nature of work as well as people who do that work. Perhaps people truly want to succeed, to make a contribution to the business. Perhaps they are capable of figuring out not only what needs to be done but how to coordinate with others to accomplish a complex set of tasks.

Morning  Star does a couple of things to get the best from their people. First, every person writes a personal mission statement that outlines how he/she will contribute to the company’s mission of “producing tomato products and services which consistently achieve the quality and service expectations of our customers.”  Then people are expected to be responsible for accomplishing their mission and acquiring the resources and cooperation to do so. Finally, employees negotiate agreements (letters of understanding, like SLAs) with their co-workers most affected by their work. In essence, these agreements become an operating plan that describes how one will accomplish his/her mission as well as the metrics by which he/she will be held accountable by these peers. Not a quick or easy process but one which assures that people add value and coordinate with others to the accomplishment of organizational goals.

Although there are other tenets that make up the Morning Star’s operational success, these agreements take the place of hierarchical structure. People, at the point of a decision, have the fluidity and authority to do what needs to be done to accomplish an outcome rather than relying on someone from above directing their activity. Organizing in this way results in a host of advantages: lower costs, more cooperation, better decisions, increased flexibility, and higher loyalty.

Of course, it also brings certain disadvantages and challenges: tougher adjustment for some, longer induction, harder to hold people accountable, inability to acquire other companies (with a different culture), and so on.

I am not suggesting that the Morning Star model is right for everyone. However, it does teach us a lot about the principles of self-management, which likely can be incorporated into many companies today. At its heart is the notion that people are intelligent and capable. They want to contribute and can do so as we remove barriers and design organizational structures and systems in ways that allow them the flexibility and authority to work up to their potential.

A few years back I did some consulting work with a hospital that wanted to improve the quality of management across the entire organization (admin, Drs., nurses, etc.).  They began by administering a survey to all employees, asking them to rate their managers on a number of management and leadership qualities.

From the results of the survey, they selected the top seven performers, from approximately 350 administrators/supervisors throughout the hospital, for a special recognition. These men and women were invited to a special banquet and ceremony in which each was honored by the top administrators of the hospital and representatives from the corporation.

I had the privilege of attending the banquet to become acquainted with each of these individuals. In fact, I had been asked to spend the next day at an off-site retreat with them exploring the topic of leadership. Although I did provide a little education in leadership principles and skills, my main agenda was to glean from them what made them successful. I considered it a great opportunity to learn from managers who were known to be the most outstanding in their organization.

So, the question was—why, among all the supervisors and administrators within the hospital, were they considered the most effective by the people who reported directly to them? What did they do, in their day-to-day management? What beliefs, practices or skills did they follow? Did anything set them apart? Was it different from each one of them, or were there some common themes in their approach to their jobs that made them so effective?

I asked the questions and then sat back, letting them explore such questions among themselves. At the beginning of the day, the answers to these questions were quite unclear. As a matter of fact, a number of them couldn’t get over the fact that they’d been rated highly and had been invited to participate in this event. They hadn’t really considered that they were all that much better than their peers.

But we pressed on with the conversation. Each had plenty of air-time to talk about their management “philosophies” and practices. As the day went on, they began to quiz and learn from each other, grateful for an opportunity to step back and reflect on their leadership and its consequences on their employees.

By the end of the day, the group of seven had identified a handful of practices which they believe made them successful and which, remarkably, were pretty common between them. There was a particularly strong consensus among the top three.

1. They agreed with each other about the importance of sharing information widely. They were not information bottle-necks but continually passed along what they knew to members of their teams or work groups. Be it related to a patient, department performance, changes in corporate strategy or policy, what was going on in another department. It didn’t matter. These supervisors did their best to keep their employees informed and knowledgeable.
2. They agreed that they were quick to address conflicts, sensitive issues, or performance problems. They didn’t believe in sweeping such matters under the carpet. If they had a concern, they were direct in surfacing and resolving it. However, they also agreed that they didn’t do so through power (“my way or the highway”). Instead, a number of them stated that they began such conversations with an open mind, wanting to understand the point of view of another. But they were also quite fearless in setting a standard and then working with others toward a resolution, a commitment. Their employees learned to count on them to be honest and direct, but fair.
3. The third practice around which they agreed quite strongly was thinking in terms of “us.”  They would go to the people in their departments and say “We have a problem,” not “I have a problem.” Metaphorically speaking, they had a way of getting the monkey off of their own shoulders and plopping it in the middle of the table for others to pick up. Results were about “us” not “me.” Problems were “ours” not “mine,” or “yours” for that matter. They recognized that their responsibility was not primarily to solve problems and achieve results but create the context in which others felt the ownership and incentive to do so. By so doing, they were able to create an atmosphere in which others were committed and engaged in contributing to organizational outcomes.

Three rather simple practices, when you think about  it, yet also very powerful in fostering a positive atmosphere among employees. I think about these practices today and realize that they combine high standards with a high respect for people. I do believe that begins to get at the essence of leadership. Both qualities are necessary to get extraordinary performance.

In my last post, I introduced the concepts of the accountability letter and interview.  Their purpose is to create clarity and alignment between an individual and his or her manager. I have found the process to be extremely powerful in companies in which I’ve recommended and implemented it, especially when leaders view them not as tools to control people but rather practices to create mutual understanding and open up constructive conversation.

Today I want to put a twist on the practice.  Enlightened leaders are coming to realize that ultimate accountability is not to leaders but customers. The purpose of your work, whatever it might be, is to bring value to your customers, be they internal or external. The whole concept of “management” was put into place to control the means and way in which people accomplish their work. Although a topic for another day, traditional management practices bring lots of unintended consequences which may actually impede organizational objectives and efficiency. (I’ll talk more about that in an upcoming post.)

My purpose today is to encourage you to establish accountability to customers as a hallmark for how you do business. The sharper the understanding between you (or your employees) and customers, the less you need traditional “supervision.” Once again, these customers may be internal or external. They may be the end purchasers of your products or services and they may also be fellow workers who depend on your work to accomplish their work. In either case, putting accountability processes and reviews in place (like service level agreements) open dialogue, improve your understanding of what is really important to your customers, and will do as much as anything to ensure you’re achieving the most important measures of business success.

Although the specifics depend on the nature of the business, here is a generic outline to get started:

1. Your value proposition to each customer or customer segment (end-result benefits they receive from you, which impact their quality of life).
2. Scope of services and specific deliverables you provide your customer (from their point of view).
3. Performance requirements and goals.
4. Information and support you need from your customer in order to fulfill your commitment to them.
5. Roles and responsibilities of all parties.
6. Obstacles to fulfilling your responsibilities. (Not as an excuse but to make you proactive in anticipating and resolving potential problems.)
7. List of what you need (resources, training, support, information) to successfully carry out your responsibilities.

This is not a document that can be created unilaterally. That would defeat the purpose. It must be done after seeking the thoughts and input of your customers. You go to your customers (sometimes just a sampling of customers) and talk to them about your relationship. What do you provide them? How would they describe your relationship? What is working or not working? Ask for their specific and measurable requirements that they expect you to meet (most of these need to be quantifiable). Invite them to tell you how you’re currently doing and what they need you to do differently. Clarify roles and responsibilities related to the delivery of your product or services.

Use your notes to create a first draft of your “contract.” Either involve your customer (or someone who represents a segment of customers) in writing the draft or take it back to him/her to get input. Make modifications until you have a document that satisfies all parties. Now it’s up to you to execute, which will be much easier because you have much better idea of what you are delivering and how.

You will need to adjust this process to work for you. But now you have a mechanism that to improve your line of sight to your customers and give you the specific knowledge you need to serve your customers as never before. And after all, there is no more important accountability in an organization than to your customers.

I’ve been exploring, in recent blogs, practices to build good leadership into the infrastructure of your organization. It’s one thing to understand, theoretically, good leadership. It’s another to put that understanding into practice on a daily basis.

Today I want to introduce the practice of an “Accountability Letter.” The purpose of this letter is to ensure clarity and agreement between an individual and his/her manager about performance expectations on the job. Here are the basic ingredients of such a letter:

1. Person’s understanding of his/her leader’s role and responsibilities.
2. Individual’s role and responsibilities.
3. Individual performance goals, including standards to measure success. (These measures need to be aligned to leader, team and organization goals and are often organized around a handful of themes, such as: customer service, productivity, personal growth, and so on.)
4. Major obstacles to fulfilling one’s responsibilities.
5. List of what the leader and/or company may do that help and what they do that hinder the individual from carrying out their responsibilities.
6. List of what the individual feels they need (resources, training, support, information) to successfully carry out their responsibilities.

The individual writes the letter, following the outline above, and then gives it to his or her leader for review. The two of them then sit down together to discuss the contents and make sure they are in agreement.

The value of the process is that it establishes clarity  around expectations. It becomes a “contract” that ensures the two of them are working towards the same goals. It also provides specific means for measuring individual performance and progress. And, it opens up dialogue so that they can get important work related issues on the table and talk them through.

Personal Accountability Interviews.

A next step in this process if for the leader and individual to meet, at a mutually agreed frequency, to talk about how things are going. The meeting has three primary objectives. First it focuses on the performance of the individual, how they are doing against their performance requirements, goals, and metrics. This represents an opportunity for the individual to be accountable and for the leader to provide the resources and support he/she needs in order to succeed. It is a time to make sure that people are using their time wisely and making good business decisions.

The second objective of  an accountability interview is to promote the development of the individual. The leader plays the role of mentor by providing information or training in such areas as the strategy and direction of the business, the role of leaders in a high performance organization, behavioral expectations, etc. It is a time to create and monitor the personal development plan to be sure the individual is making continual improvements in their performance and moving ahead in his/her career. Most importantly, it represents an opportunity to listen, understand, and learn about the individual, how they are doing and what they need in their on-going development.

And a third objective is to maintain a positive relationship between an individual and his/her leader. Research, as well as experience, indicates that a positive relationship with one’s manager is one of the most important factors in employee happiness. A negative relationship with one’s boss is the most frequent reason given for employee attrition. Writing the initial letter and then meeting on a regular basis keeps the individual and leader more tightly connected and gives them opportunity to discuss mismatched expectations and potential performance obstacles.

I want to let you know that we’ve recently launched our redesigned webpage at the Center for Organizational Design. Check it out at http://www.Centerod.com.

We have included detailed information about our Organizational Design Framework as well as our successful Organizational Design Process.

An overview and links to more detailed information about our consulting services are available at: https://centerod.com/consulting/

You can also find helpful descriptions of our consulting and training programs on the new site: https://centerod.com/training/.

You will find many of the popular articles on this page: https://centerod.com/articles/

More information and updates will be available regularly on The Center for Organizational Design Blog: https://centerod.com/blog/

We appreciate your ongoing interest.

Dr. Roger K. Allen