April 2008
In this Issue:
The Difference Between Good Leaders and Great Leaders
By Judy Chartrand, Ph.D. and Mark Rose, Ph.D
The characteristics of effective leadership have been widely described in popular literature, from Bennis’ guiding vision to Bennett’s virtues. Yet the question remains: What are the most important qualities a company should consider when selecting an employee to lead a team, division, and corporation?
Recently, personality and related concepts, such as emotional intelligence, have come to the forefront of this discussion. The requirements for success in business today, such as innovation or the ability to deal with ambiguity, appear to be driven by personality. However, personality is only part of the picture. Cognitive ability is still the most potent predictor of occupational attainment and job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004). In his Harvard Business Review article, “Hiring for Smarts,” Justin Menkes pinpointed critical thinking as the foundation of executive intelligence. Good critical thinkers possess a core set of cognitive thinking skills, as well as a disposition toward critical thinking. Coveted business competencies, such as strategic thinking, innovation, or dealing with ambiguity, are built on critical thinking skills and refined by disposition. Companies that do not include critical thinking as part of their management selection or succession battery are missing information that can help differentiate good leaders from great leaders.
Critical Thinking Defined
A business leader who thinks clearly, sorts through the clutter, and anticipates well is using his or her critical thinking skills. At a more formal level, critical thinking can be defined by six key skills (see box on page 3) that work in conjunction. Dispositional characteristics are also relevant, and include being inquisitive, judicious, truth-seeking, confident in reasoning, open-minded, analytical, and systematic (Facione, 1990). In his article, Menkes differentiates the critical thinking of executive intelligence from broader cognitive skills. Business leaders can be bright and well-educated, but still not possess superior critical thinking skills. After reviewing the literature on essential components of leadership and analyzing star performers, Menkes identified the core components of critical thinking as the ability to distinguish primary goals from less relevant concerns, anticipate probable outcomes, and recognize peoples’ underlying agendas. Companies that accurately assess these components are more likely to select leaders who will excel in the real-world business arena.
The Six Core Critical Thinking Skills
Interpretation – comprehending the meaning and significance of a wide variety of situations, data or events. It is the ability to categorize, determine significance, and clarify meaning. In practice, it is the person who recognizes a problem or accurately reads someone’s nonverbal cues to distill meaning.
Analysis – identifying the relationships from information or opinion. It is the ability to effectively examine ideas and arguments. In practice, it is the executive who differentiates ideas that define a successful strategic plan from those that don’t.
Evaluation – assessing the credibility of statements and the logical strength of the inferential relationships among statements. It is recognizing credibility or judging if an argument’s conclusions follow from its premise; it is recognizing relevance. In practice, it is the leader who effectively weighs the alternatives that lead to differential profitability.
Inference – identifying information needed to draw reasonable conclusions. It is gathering
evidence, weighing alternatives, and drawing conclusions. In practice, it is the manager who
effectively determines which of several potential conclusions is most strongly supported by the evidence at hand.
Explanation – stating one’s position or justifying a position based on evidence, criteria, or contextual considerations. It is cogent arguments and the use of insightful criteria to support a judgment. In practice, it is the employee who develops a proposal backed by solid data and logic.
Self-regulation – monitoring one’s cognitive activities by questioning, validating, or correcting one’s reasoning. It is self-examination and self-correction. In practice, it is the professional who dissects personal biases and opinions from important information prior to making a decision.
Based on a consensus definition of critical thinking by a panel of international experts (Facione, 1990).
top
Managers & Employees Afraid of Confronting Mistakes
According to a new study by Leadership IQ, in the past 90 days, 93% of people have avoided confronting a coworker about inappropriate behavior, even when a customer or the organization suffered as a result. In the past 90 days, 81% of managers have avoided confronting a subordinate about inappropriate behavior, even when a customer or the organization suffered as a result.
In the past 90 days, 89% of people have avoided confronting their boss when he or she failed to fulfill an expectation or promise.
Leadership IQ a training and research firm, compiled these results after conducting a survey about communication skills with 9,561 employees, managers and executives from 272 public, private, business and healthcare organizations.
Unfortunately, avoiding these sensitive conversations is bad for everybody. A multiple regression analysis revealed that 37% of an employee's willingness to stay at their company is driven by their comfort with speaking the truth about these sensitive issues. In essence, if an employee doesn't feel comfortable talking about tough issues to their boss, coworkers or employees, they are more likely to consider quitting.
The root cause of these communication failures seems to be the following: 77% of people say that when they speak up about sensitive topics, the other party gets angry or defensive.
The finding that will likely trouble companies the most is that 83% of people say that they occasionally or frequently withhold important information from bosses, coworkers and employees because they fear the conversation will end badly.
"Most people do not feel comfortable speaking the truth about sensitive topics," explains Mark Murphy, CEO of Leadership IQ. "But when employees and leaders lack the confidence or training to have these tough conversations, the company and its customers will suffer."
"It's impossible to have an accountable culture when people won't engage each other in discussions about the most sensitive topics," he notes. "Anybody can discuss 'fun' issues, but how many customers have suffered because employees and leaders couldn't speak the truth about sensitive topics? The measure of an organization's culture and its leaders is their willingness to broach tough topics and their success in having conversations that result in understanding, not anger."
"Of course, we do have terrible role models," says Murphy. "Our politicians seem incapable of speaking the truth to each other without the conversation devolving into a shouting match laced with personal attacks. And business executives aren't necessarily any better. Earlier this year the CEO of Home Depot got fired because he avoided discussing some painful truths (and when he did speak the truth, he made everyone angry and defensive). Shortly thereafter, the CEO of The Gap got fired because he couldn't speak the truth with enough strength or clarity."
top
Conquer Team Dysfunction
By Patrick Lencioni
Like it or not, all teams are potentially dysfunctional. This is inevitable because they are made up of fallible, imperfect human beings. From the basketball court to the executive suite, politics and confusion are more the rule than the exception. However, facing dysfunction and focusing on teamwork is particularly critical at the top of an organization because the executive team sets the tone for how all employees work with one another. A former client, the founder of a billion dollar company, best expressed the power of teamwork when he once told me, "If you could get all the people in the organization rowing in the same direction, you could dominate any industry, in any market, against any competition, at any time." Whenever I repeat this adage to a group of leaders, they immediately nod their heads, but in a desperate sort of way. They seem to grasp the truth of it while simultaneously surrendering to the impossibility of actually making it happen.
Fortunately, there is hope. Counter to conventional wisdom, the causes of dysfunction are both identifiable and curable. However, they don't die easily. Making a team functional and cohesive requires levels of courage and discipline that many groups cannot seem to muster.
Addressing the Dysfunctions
To begin improving your team and to better understand the level of dysfunction you are facing, ask yourself these simple questions:
- Do team members openly and readily disclose their opinions?
- Are team meetings compelling and productive?
- Does the team come to decisions quickly and avoid getting bogged down by consensus?
- Do team members confront one another about their shortcomings?
- Do team members sacrifice their own interests for the good of the team?
Although no team is perfect and even the best teams sometimes struggle with one or more of these issues, the finest organizations constantly work to ensure that their answers are "yes." If you answered "no" to many of these questions, your team may need some work. The first step toward reducing politics and confusion within your team is to understand that there are five dysfunctions to contend with, and address each that applies, one by one.
The Dysfunctions
Dysfunction #1: Absence of Trust
This occurs when team members are reluctant to be vulnerable with one another and are unwilling to admit their mistakes, weaknesses or needs for help. Without a certain comfort level among team members, a foundation of trust is impossible.
Dysfunction #2: Fear of Conflict
Teams that are lacking on trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered, passionate debate about key issues, causing situations where team conflict can easily turn into veiled discussions and back channel comments. In a work setting where team members do not openly air their opinions, inferior decisions are the result.
Dysfunction #3: Lack of Commitment
Without conflict, it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions, creating an environment where ambiguity prevails. Lack of direction and commitment can make employees, particularly star employees, disgruntled
Dysfunction #4: Avoidance of Accountability
When teams don't commit to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven individuals hesitate to call their peers on actions and behaviors that may seem counterproductive to the overall good of the team.
Dysfunction #5: Inattention to Results
Team members naturally tend to put their own needs (ego, career development, recognition, etc.) ahead of the collective goals of the team when individuals aren't held accountable. If a team has lost sight of the need for achievement, the business ultimately suffers.
The Rewards
Striving to create a functional, cohesive team is one of the few remaining competitive advantages available to any organization looking for a powerful point of differentiation. Functional teams avoid wasting time talking about the wrong issues and revisiting the same topics over and over again because of lack of buy-in. Functional teams also make higher quality decisions and accomplish more in less time and with less distraction and frustration. Additionally, "A" players rarely leave organizations where they are part of a cohesive team.
Successful teamwork is not about mastering subtle, sophisticated theories, but rather about embracing common sense with uncommon levels of discipline and persistence. Ironically, teams succeed because they are exceedingly human. By acknowledging the imperfections of their humanity, members of functional teams overcome the natural tendencies that make teamwork so elusive.
© Copyright 2007 The Table Group
top |
"