chapter assignments 3113

pad3113TheLeadershipExperiencebookchpater5-7.pdf

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >chapter assignments 3113

Copyright 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

YOUR CHALLENGE After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Recognize how mental models guide your behavior and relationships.

• Engage in independent thinking by staying mentally alert, thinking critically, and being mindful rather than mindless.

• Break out of categorized thinking patterns and open your mind to new ideas and multiple perspectives.

• Begin to apply systems thinking and personal mastery to your activities at school or work.

• Exercise emotional intelligence, including being self-aware, managing your emotions, motivating yourself, displaying empathy, and managing relationships.

• Apply the difference between motivating others based on fear and motivating others based on love.

CHAPTER 136

136

140

146

153

139

152

155

143

153

154

141

159

160

161

A s Lieutenant Colonel Howard Olson surveys the crowd before him, he knows that most of the people in the room outrank him. Still, Olson opens his talk with the following statement: “Each and every one of you has something that

makes you a jerk…. Some of you have more than one. I know. I’ve talked to you.” The lecture is part of what the U.S. Army informally calls “charm school,” a

week-long course held annually for the select few who are promoted to brigadier general. Everyone knows about the Army’s skill at getting new recruits in boot camp to think and act in a new way, but few people have seen firsthand the training it uses to get high-ranking officers to make a mental and emotional leap. At charm school, new generals are advised to get in touch with their inner jerk and work on overcoming that aspect of their personality. Charm school is designed as a reminder that the great officers are those who genuinely care about their soldiers. Other recurring themes during the training include avoiding even the appearance of ethical violations, leading with moral courage, and overcoming arrogance, the “first deadly sin of the general officer.”1

There’s no equivalent training in corporate America, but the lessons taught at the Army’s charm school are also being taken to heart at many of today’s business

135

organizations, where leaders are learning to build work relationships based on trust, humility, caring, and respect.

This chapter and the next examine current thinking about the importance of leaders becoming fully integrated people by exploring the full capacities of their minds, emotions, and spirits. Noted leadership author and scholar Warren Bennis has said that “there’s no difference between being a really effective leader and becoming a fully integrated person.”2 This chapter first examines the importance of leading with both head and heart (mind and emotion). Then we expand on some of the ideas introduced in the previous chapter to consider how the ability to shift our thinking and feeling can help leaders alter their behavior, influence others, and be more effective. We discuss the concept of mental models and look at how qualities such as independent thinking, an open mind, and systems thinking are important for leaders. Then we take a closer look at human emotions, the concept of emotional intelligence, and the emotions of love versus fear in leader– follower relationships. The next chapter will turn to spirit as reflected in moral leadership and courage.

As most of us know from personal experience, working effectively with other people requires that we draw on subtle aspects of ourselves—our thoughts, beliefs, and feelings—and appeal to those aspects in others. Anyone who has participated on an athletic team knows how powerfully thoughts and emotions can affect performance. Interestingly, though, many people in leadership roles tend to forget the emotional aspect of leading.

To succeed in today’s environment requires whole leaders who use both their head and their heart.3 Leaders have to use their head to tend to organiza- tional issues such as goals and strategies, production schedules, structure, finances, operational issues, and so forth. They also have to use their heart to tend to human issues, such as understanding, supporting, and developing others. Using heart in leadership is particularly important in times of uncer- tainty and rapid change. Current issues that require leaders to use both head and heart include how to give people a sense of meaning and purpose when major changes occur almost daily; how to make employees feel valued and respected in an age of massive layoffs and job uncertainty; and how to keep morale and motivation high in the face of corporate bankruptcies and dissolutions, ethical scandals, and eco- nomic crises.

A broad literature has emphasized that being a whole person means operating from mind, heart, spirit, and body.4 In Chapter 4, we introduced some ideas about how individuals think, make decisions, and solve problems based on values, atti- tudes, and patterns of thinking. This chapter builds on some of those ideas to pro- vide a broader view of leadership mind and emotions.

A mental model can be thought of as an internal picture that affects a leader’s thoughts, actions, and relationships with others. Mental models are theories people hold about specific systems in the world and their expected behavior.5 A system

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can lead with

both head and heart. You can

expand the capacity of your

mind, emotions, and spirit by

consciously engaging in activi-

ties that use aspects of the

whole self.

136

Mental models

theories people hold about

specific systems in the world

and their expected behavior

means any set of elements that interact to form a whole and produce a specified outcome. To understand what is meant by a mental model, consider an electrical circuit as a system. Exhibit 5.1 shows the elements of an electrical circuit system. A mental model would give you a picture in your mind of how these four elements fit together to produce the outcome of light. Just as an electric circuit is a system, an organization is a system, as is a football team, a sorority pledge drive, or the regis- tration system at a university. An accurate mental model helps a leader understand how to arrange the key elements in these systems to get the desired outcome.

Leaders have many mental models that tend to govern how they interpret experiences and how they act in response to people and situations. Consider the two different mental models in the following quote from Robert Townsend, former CEO of Avis Rent-a-Car. To have a successful organization, he advised leaders, “you’ll have to give up being an administrator who loves to run others and become a manager who carries water for his people so they can get on with the job.”6 The first part of the phrase reflects a mental model that it is the leader’s job to control people, whereas the second part reflects a mental model that the leader is a servant who helps people do their best. Exhibit 5.2 shows the mental model that Google’s

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can become

aware of your mental models

and how they affect your

thinking and behavior. You can

learn to regard your assump-

tions as temporary ideas and

strive to expand your mindset.

Stay uncomfortable

Let failure coexist with triumph

Use a little less “management” than you need

Defy convention

Move fast and figure things out as you go

Source: Based on Adam Lashinsky, “Chaos by Design,” Fortune (October 2, 2006), pp. 86–98.

137

top leaders use to keep the company on the cutting edge as its core business of search matures. At Google, leaders believe that risk-taking, a little craziness, and making mistakes are important for the sake of innovation. Too much structure and control is considered death to the company.7

Leaders at Google, as well as other organizations, strive to create mental mod- els that are aligned with organizational needs, goals, and values. However, personal values, attitudes, beliefs, biases, and prejudices can all affect one’s mental model. A leader’s assumptions play an important role in shaping his or her mental models, but leaders can examine their assumptions and shift or expand mental models when needed to keep their organizations healthy.8

In Chapter 4, we discussed two very different sets of attitudes and assumptions that leaders may have about subordinates, called Theory X and Theory Y, and how these assumptions affect leader behavior. A leader’s assumptions naturally are part of his or her mental model. Someone who assumes that people can’t be trusted will act very differently in a situation than someone who has the assumption that people are basically trustworthy. Leaders have assumptions about events, situations, and circumstances as well as about people. Assumptions can be dangerous because people tend to accept them as “truth.”

J.C. Penney provides a good example. Ron Johnson, who helped create the popular and successful Apple retail stores, was hired to save J.C. Penney from a slow death, but he was fired just 17 months into the job. Johnson’s assumptions about the transformation, which included making stores and merchandise more upscale, were based on his experience with what worked at Apple. He created in-store “boutiques” with expensive shelving and signage and pushed stores to stock youthful slim-fitting clothing and European designs, reflecting a shift away from the retailer’s core customers. The problem is that J.C. Penney isn’t Apple. Customers flock to Apple stores for cutting-edge, status-symbol products, but J.C. Penney’s customers want basic clothing and home goods at low prices. Johnson’s remake assumed the only department store customer that mattered was the one “who shops at Target or Macy’s or Nordstrom’s,” said Margaret Bogenrief of ACM Partners.9 It remains to be seen if Myron Ullman III, who returned as CEO when Johnson was pushed out, can work with other top leaders to bring more realistic assumptions to the challenge of reinventing an iconic brand for a new era.

As this example illustrates, it is important for leaders to regard their assump- tions as temporary ideas rather than fixed truths. The more aware a leader is of his or her assumptions, the more the leader understands how assumptions guide behavior and decisions. In addition, the leader can question whether long-held assumptions fit the reality of the current situation. Questioning assumptions can help leaders understand and shift their mental models.

The mindset of top leaders has always played a key role in organizational success. A Harvard University study ranking the top 100 business leaders of the twentieth century found that they all shared what the researchers refer to as “contextual intelli- gence,” the ability to sense the social, political, technological, and economic context of the times and adopt a mental model that helped their organizations best respond.10

In a world of rapid and discontinuous change, the greatest factor determining the

138

success of leaders and organizations may be the ability to change or expand one’s mental model.11

Organizations are vulnerable when leaders stick with obsolete mental models in the face of new realities. For example, market share for the BlackBerry smartphone has plummeted in recent years because leaders at Research in Motion stayed with what worked in the past and had a hard time shifting their mental model to keep the company competitive in an environment that changed quickly with the introduction of Apple and Samsung smartphones. On the other hand, leaders at Apple, particularly the late Steve Jobs, have been masters at shifting or expanding their mental models over the years. One researcher who interviewed Steve Jobs said he could “sometimes throw you off balance by suddenly adopting your position as his own, without ever acknowledging that he ever thought differently.” One reason Apple is so successful today, this researcher asserts, is that Steve Jobs was a genius at reframing issues and shifting mental models—his own, his employees’, his partners’, and his customers’. Before the iPhone, no one had ever thought of something like the App Store or the possibility of demanding a share of the revenue from wireless carriers, for instance.12

Unfortunately many leaders become prisoners of their own assumptions and mindsets because these led to success in the past. They find themselves simply going along with the traditional way of doing things—whether it be running a business such as Research in Motion, managing a foundation, handling insurance claims, sell- ing cosmetics, or coaching a basketball team—without even realizing they are making decisions and acting within the limited frame of their own mental model.13

One specific challenge for the mental models of leaders is to navigate through ambiguities and complexities on a global scale that far exceed anything they encounter within their traditional management responsibilities.14 A global mindset can be defined as the ability of managers to appreciate and influence individuals, groups, organizations, and systems that represent different social, cultural, political, institutional, intellectual, or psychological characteristics.15 A manager with a global mindset can perceive and respond to many different perspectives at the same time rather than being stuck in a domestic mental model that sees everything from one’s own limited personal or cultural perspective. One of the best ways managers develop a global mindset is by engaging with people from different cultures. Ken Powell, CEO of General Mills, says being given international positions early in his career convinced him that getting people out of their comfort zone was the best way to develop leaders.16 Some Hollywood movie executives have expanded their mental model to become more successful in overseas markets.

Hollywood Studios Hollywood films have long been quintessentially American products, and years ago audi-

ences in Japan or Brazil or South Korea would faithfully go watch movies that were written

for and marketed primarily to American audiences. Times have changed. Local films in other

countries are giving Hollywood a run for its money. At the same time, audiences are declin-

ing in the United States but growing overseas. Hollywood movies now get about 70 percent

of their revenue from abroad. Hollywood executives are adopting a new mental model that

makes movies specifically for certain foreign markets or reframes American films to suit for-

eign tastes. Here are some examples:

Global mindset

the ability of managers to

appreciate and influence in- dividuals, groups, organiza-

tions, and systems that

represent different social,

cultural, political, institutional, intellectual, or psychological

characteristics

139

• For Paramount’s G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and GI Joe: Retaliation, Byung-hun Lee, a major

Korean movie star, and South African actor Arnold Vosloo were placed in prominent

roles.

• Some recent films, such as Rio and Fast Five, have been set in Brazil, which is a rapidly

growing market for Hollywood movies. In The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I, Bella

Swan and Edward Cullen spend their honeymoon on a private Brazilian island.

• In a recent Transformers movie, DreamWorks Studios had a character gulping Shuhua

low-lactase milk from China’s Yili dairy company.

• Pixar’s Cars didn’t do well abroad, so the studio set the sequel in Paris, London, Tokyo,

and on the Italian Riviera.

These and other techniques represent a whole new mental model for making movies.

Rather than trying to lure audiences to their films, studio leaders are targeting their films to

the audiences. 17

Leaders at the Hollywood studios have expanded their mental model because they had to in order to make movies cost-effective. “I can tell you that no studio is going to make a big expensive movie that costs $150 million or $200 million unless it has worldwide appeal,” said Mark Zoradi, former president of Walt Disney Company’s Motion Pictures Group. “You can’t pay back that production cost on the domestic model alone.”18

Despite the mental discomfort and sense of disorientation it might cause, lea- ders must allow their mental models to be challenged and even demolished.19

Becoming aware of assumptions and understanding how they influence emotions and actions is the first step toward being able to shift mental models and see the world in a new way. Effective leaders learn to continually question their own beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions in order to see things in unconventional ways and meet the challenge of the future head on.20 Leaders who are unable to see and change their own ineffective mental models often need outside help, as described in this chapter’s Leader’s Bookshelf.

How do leaders expand their mental models? The leader’s mind can be developed beyond the nonleader’s in four critical areas: independent thinking, open-mindedness, systems thinking, and personal mastery. Taken together, these four disciplines provide a foundation that can help leaders examine their mental models and over- come blind spots that may limit their leadership effectiveness and the success of their organizations.

Independent thinking means questioning assumptions and interpreting data and events according to one’s own beliefs, ideas, and thinking, not according to pre-established rules, routines, or categories defined by others. People who think independently are willing to stand apart, to have opinions, to say what they think, and to determine a course of action based on what they personally believe rather than on what other people think or say. Consider the female manager who left

140

Independent thinking

questioning assumptions

and interpreting data and

events according to one’s

own beliefs, ideas, and thinking, rather than pre-

established rules or catego-

ries defined by others

Ralston Purina for a marketing job at Eveready in the mid-1980s. Eveready had become a household name because of its sales of inexpensive red plastic and metal flashlights, but the flashlight business was in decline. This manager questioned why flashlights couldn’t be made in colors like pink, baby blue, and lime green that would appeal to women—and why weren’t they sold in grocery stores? It wasn’t a popular decision, but once top executives agreed to go along with the new ideas, the flashlight business rebounded.21 Good leadership isn’t about following the rules of others but standing up for what you believe is best for the organization.

To think independently means staying mentally alert and thinking critically. Independent thinking is one part of what is called leader mindfulness.22 Mindfulness can be defined as a state of paying attention to new information and a readiness to create new mental categories in the face of evolving information and shifting cir- cumstances.23 Mindfulness involves independent thinking, and it requires leader curiosity and learning. Mindful leaders are open-minded and stimulate the thinking of others through their curiosity and questions. Mindfulness is the opposite of mindlessness, which means blindly accepting rules and labels created by others. Mindless people let others do the thinking for them, but mindful leaders are always open to new ideas and approaches.

What Got You Here Won’t Get You There

by Marshall Goldsmith and Mark Reiter

Success, says executive coach Marshall Goldsmith, makes many people believe they must be doing everything right. Therefore, as leaders move up the hier- archy they often continue to rely on mental models about interpersonal rela- tionships that seemed to work when they were in lower-level positions. Con- sequently, they may sabotage their effectiveness and career advancement. “All other things being equal, your peo- ple skills (or lack of them) become more pronounced the higher up you go,” Goldsmith writes in

. Goldsmith and his collaborator, Mark Reiter, identify 20 mental habits that damage leader rela- tionships at higher levels.

NOBODY’S PERFECT

Every leader has some habits or nega- tive behaviors that can limit his or her effectiveness. Following are a few of the behavioral flaws Goldsmith and Reiter describe. Do you recognize any of these in your own behaviors?

•

We all know them— those people who feel like they have

to win every argument and always be right. They want to win the big points, the small points, and everything in between. If they go along with another’s idea that doesn’t work out, they adopt an “I told you so” attitude. In the workplace, a top leader’s need to be right and to point out that he or she is right damages relationships and destroys teamwork.

• There’s noth- ing wrong with looking at and under- standing the past as a way to come to terms with it or learn from it. Too often, though, people cling to the past as a way to blame others for things that have gone wrong in their lives, using the past as a weapon to control others or punish them for not doing exactly what the leader wants.

•

It’s not true that “love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Apologizing is love in action. Refus- ing to apologize probably causes more ill will—whether in a romance, a family, or a work relationship— than any other interpersonal flaw. “People who can’t apologize at

work may as well be wearing a T-shirt that says: ‘I don’t care about you,’” Goldsmith writes.

CHANGE IS POSSIBLE

As an executive coach, Goldsmith has spent his career helping leaders find and fix the mental models that hold them back.His prescription for success can ben- efit any leader who genuinely wants to improve his or her interpersonal relation- ships. The first step is to gather feedback that helps you identify the specific beha- viorsyouneedtochange.Next, focusyour mind on fixing the problem by apologiz- ing for your behavioral flaws, advertising your efforts to change, listening to ideas from others, showing gratitude for others’ contributionstoyourchangeprocess,and following up on your progress. When you are mindful of your dependence on others,Goldsmithpointsout,otherpeople typically not only agree to help you be a better person, they also try to become better people themselves.

Source: by Marshall Goldsmith and Mark Reiter, is pub- lished by Hyperion Books.

Mindfulness

a state of paying attention to

new information and a

readiness to create new mental categories in the face

of evolving information and

shifting circumstances

141

Being mindful and thinking independently is important for leaders because they can easily become overwhelmed with the amount and variety of tasks that confront them. The deluge of e-mail, text messages, Web conferences, blogs, and so forth has intensified the problem. It is easy to begin doing things on autopilot.24 But in the world of organizations, circumstances are constantly changing. What worked in one situation may not work the next time. In these conditions, mental laziness, operating on autopilot, and accepting others’ answers can hurt the organization and all its members. Consider what happened to entrepreneur Kord Campbell, who failed for 12 days to notice an e-mail from a large company interested in buying his small Internet startup. Why? With the hectic pace of his life, Campbell had been operating on autopilot. “It seems he can no longer be fully in the moment,” says his wife.25

Good leaders apply critical thinking to explore a situation, problem, or question from multiple perspectives and integrate all the available information into a possible solution. When leaders think critically, they question all assumptions, vigorously seek divergent opinions, and try to give balanced consideration to all alternatives.26

Thinking independently and critically is hard work, and most of us can easily relax into temporary mindlessness, accepting black-and-white answers and relying on standard ways of doing things. Leaders at BP have been faulted for deciding to finish work sealing the well at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico despite some key pressure test discrepancies. They followed procedures that had worked fine in the past, but this proved to be a fatal decision at Deepwater Horizon. The rig exploded within hours, killing 11 workers and leaving oil on beaches from Louisiana to Florida.27

Good leaders also encourage followers to be mindful rather than mindless. Bernard Bass, who has studied charismatic and transformational leadership, talks about the value of intellectual stimulation—arousing followers’ thoughts and imagi- nations as well as stimulating their ability to identify and solve problems crea- tively.28 People admire leaders who awaken their curiosity, challenge them to think and learn, and encourage openness to new, inspiring ideas and alternatives.

The power of the conditioning that limits our thinking and behavior is illustrated by what has been called the Pike Syndrome. In an experiment, a northern pike is placed in one half of a large glass-divided aquarium, with numerous minnows placed in the other half. The hungry pike makes repeated attempts to get the min- nows but succeeds only in battering itself against the glass, finally learning that try- ing to reach the minnows is futile. The glass divider is then removed, but the pike makes no attempt to attack the minnows because it has been conditioned to believe that reaching them is impossible. When people assume they have complete knowl- edge of a situation because of past experiences, they exhibit the Pike Syndrome, a trained incapacity that comes from rigid commitment to what was true in the past and an inability to consider alternatives and different perspectives.29

Leaders have to forget many of their conditioned ideas to be open to new ones. This openness—putting aside preconceptions and suspending beliefs and opinions— can be referred to as “beginner’s mind.” When someone becomes an expert in a particular subject, their mind often becomes closed to the perspectives of other peo- ple. Psychologist Elizabeth Newton conducted an experiment in which she gave one set of people, called “tappers,” a list of well-known songs and asked them to rap their knuckles on a tabletop to the rhythm of the tunes. Another set of people, called “listeners,” were asked to name the songs. The tappers said they thought

NEW LEADER

Evaluate your skill in three

dimensions of mindfulness, in-

cluding intellectual stimulation,

by completing the exercise in

Leader’s Self-Insight 5.1

142

listeners would get the songs right about half the time. In reality, the listeners guessed only 3 out of 120 songs that were tapped. The tappers might be considered to have “expert minds” in this situation. The song was so clear in their minds that they couldn’t understand how the listeners could not hear it.30

The expert mind becomes a danger in organizations because it rejects new ideas based on past experience and knowledge. This danger of the expert mind’s conclu- sions becomes frighteningly clear when it comes to the field of medicine. Doctors get their diagnoses wrong 15 to 20 percent of the time because they rely on stan- dard ways of thinking and past experience. Many of these errors in judgment result in serious harm or death. Dr. Jerome Groopman, author of How Doctors Think, now teaches students at Harvard Medical School to avoid common traps such as

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Think back to how you behaved toward others at work or in a group when you were in a formal or informal leadership position. Please respond to the following items based on how frequently you exhibited each behavior. Indi- cate whether each item is Mostly False or Mostly True for you.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. Enjoyed hearing new ideas. 2. Challenged someone to think

about an old problem in a new way.

3. Tried to integrate conversation points at a higher level.

4. Felt appreciation for the view- points of others.

5. Would ask someone about the assumptions underlying his or her suggestions.

6. Came to my own conclusion de- spite what others thought.

7. Was open about myself to others. 8. Encouraged others to express

opposing ideas and arguments. 9. Fought for my own ideas. 10. Asked “dumb” questions. 11. Offered insightful comments on

the meaning of data or issues. 12. Asked questions to prompt others

to think more about an issue. 13. Expressed a controversial

opinion. 14. Encouraged opposite points of

view. 15. Suggested ways of improving my

and others’ ways of doing things.

Scoring and Interpretation

Give yourself one point for each Mostly True checked for items 1–8 and 10–15. Give yourself one point for checking Mostly False for item 9. A total score of 12 or higher would be consid- ered a high level of overall mindfulness. There are three sub- scale scores that represent three dimensions of leader mindfulness. For the dimension of open or beginner’s mind, sum your responses to questions 1, 4, 7, 9, and 14. For the dimension of independent thinking, sum your scores for ques- tions 3, 6, 11, 13, and 15. For the dimension of intellectual stimulation, sum your scores for questions 2, 5, 8, 10, and 12.

My scores are: Open or Beginner’s Mind: Independent Thinking: Intellectual Stimulation:

These scores represent three aspects of leader mindfulness—what is called open mind or beginner’s mind, independent thinking, and intellectual stimulation.

A score of 4 or higher on any of these dimensions is considered high because many people do not practice mindfulness in their leadership or group work. A score of 3 is about average, and 2 or less would be below average. Compare your three subscale scores to understand the way you use mindfulness. Analyze the specific questions for which you did not get credit to see more deeply into your pattern of mindfulness strengths or weaknesses. An open mind, independent thinking, and intellectual stimulation are valuable qualities to develop for effective leadership.

Sources: The questions above are based on ideas from R.L. Daft and R.M. Lengel, , Chapter 4 (Berrett Koehler, 2000); B. Bass and B. Avolio, , 2nd ed. (Mind Garden, Inc.); and P.M. Podaskoff, S.B. MacKenzie, R.H. Moorman, and R. Fetter, “Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,”

1, no. 2 (1990), pp. 107–142.

143

the one he fell into early in his career. As a young doctor, he listened to the complaints of an elderly patient and quickly concluded that she had indigestion. The medication he gave her provided little relief, but his mind was fixed on his initial diagnosis. As it turned out, the patient had a tear in her aorta and died in the emergency room several weeks later. It’s a lesson Groopman never forgot.31

In contrast to the expert mind, the beginner’s mind reflects the openness and innocence of a young child just learning about the world. Effective leaders strive to keep open minds and cultivate an organizational environment that encourages curiosity and learning. They understand the limitations of past experience and reach out for diverse perspectives. Rather than seeing any questioning of their ideas as a threat, these leaders encourage everyone to openly debate assumptions, confront paradoxes, question perceptions, and express feelings.32

Systems thinking is the ability to see the synergy of the whole rather than just the separate elements of a system and to learn to reinforce or change whole system patterns.33 With systems thinking, a leader sees the big picture and connects the dots rather than just looking at the dots in isolation. Many people have been trained to solve problems by breaking a complex system, such as an organization, into discrete parts and working to make each part perform as well as possible. However, the success of each piece does not add up to the success of the whole. In fact, sometimes changing one part to make it better actually makes the whole system function less effectively. For example, a small city embarked on a road- building program to solve traffic congestion without whole-systems thinking. With new roads available, more people began moving to the suburbs. The solution actu- ally increased traffic congestion, delays, and pollution by enabling suburban sprawl.34

It is the relationship among the parts that form a whole system—whether it be a community, an automobile, a nonprofit agency, a human being, or a business organization—that matters. Systems thinking enables leaders to look for patterns of movement over time and focus on the qualities of rhythm, flow, direction, shape, and networks of relationships that accomplish the performance of the whole. Systems thinking is a mental discipline and framework for seeing patterns and interrelationships.

It is important to see organizational systems as a whole because of their com- plexity. Complexity can overwhelm leaders, undermining confidence. When leaders can see the structures that underlie complex situations, they can facilitate improve- ment. But it requires a focus on the big picture. Leaders can develop what David McCamus, former chairman and CEO of Xerox Canada, calls “peripheral vision”—the ability to view the organization through a wide-angle lens rather than a telephoto lens—so that they perceive how their decisions and actions affect the whole.35

An important element of systems thinking is to discern circles of causality. Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline, argues that reality is made up of circles rather than straight lines. For example, Exhibit 5.3 shows circles of influence for increas- ing a retailer’s profits. The events in the circle on the left are caused by the decision to increase the advertising budget to aggressively promote products. The advertising promotions increase sales, which increases profits, which provides money to further increase the advertising budget.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can train

yourself to think independently.

You can be curious, keep an

open mind, and look at a

problem or situation from

multiple perspectives before

reaching your conclusions.

To assess your

systems think-

ing, log in to

CengageNOW to complete the

interactive

questionnaire.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can cultivate

an ability to analyze and

understand the relationships

among parts of a team, orga-

nization, or other system to

avoid making changes that

have unintended negative

consequences.

144

Systems thinking

the ability to see the synergy

of the whole rather than just

the separate elements of a system and to learn to

reinforce or change whole

system patterns

But another circle of causality is being influenced as well. The decision by leaders in marketing has consequences for the operations department. As sales and profits increase, the operations department is forced to stock up with greater inventory. Additional inventory creates a need for more warehouse space. Building a new warehouse causes a delay in stocking up. After the warehouse is built, new people have to be hired. All of this increases company costs, which has a negative impact on profits. Thus, understanding the consequences of their decisions via circles of causality enables leaders to plan and allocate resources to warehousing as well as to advertising to ensure stable increases in sales and profits. Without understanding the system, top leaders would fail to understand why increasing the advertising budget could actually create inventory delays and temporarily reduce profits.

Another concept introduced by Senge is personal mastery. Personal mastery means mastering yourself in a way that facilitates your leadership and achieves desired results.36 Mastering yourself embodies three qualities—clarity of mind, clarity of objectives, and organizing to achieve objectives.

First, clarity of mind means a commitment to the truth of current reality. Leaders are relentless in uncovering the mental models that limit and deceive them and are willing to challenge assumptions and standard ways of doing things. These leaders will break through denial of reality in themselves and others. Their quest for truth leads to a deeper awareness of themselves and of the larger systems and events within which they operate. Clarity of mind enables them to deal with reality, which increases the opportunity to achieve desired results.

Second, leaders engaged in personal mastery know what is important to them so that their objectives are clear. Clarity of objectives helps leaders focus on the end

Source: Based on concepts presented in Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization

(New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990).

H. A. Dorfman, author of The Mental

Game of Baseball

145

Personal mastery

the discipline of mastering

yourself; it embodies clarity of mind, clarity of objectives,

and organizing to achieve

objectives

result, the vision or dream that motivates them and their team or organization. They have a clear vision of a desired future, and their purpose is to achieve that future. One element of personal mastery, then, is the discipline of continually focus- ing and defining what one wants as the desired future.

Third, often there is a large gap between one’s vision and the current situation. The gap between the desired future and today’s reality, say between the dream of starting a business and the reality of having no capital, can be discouraging. But the gap is the source of creative energy. Organizing to achieve objectives is a way to bridge the disparity between current reality and the vision of a better future. The effective leader lets the vision pull reality toward it by reorganizing current activities to work toward the vision. The less effective way is to let reality pull the vision downward toward it. This means lowering the vision, such as walking away from a problem or settling for less than desired. Leaders with personal mastery learn to accept both the dream and the reality simultaneously and to close the gap by mov- ing toward the dream.

All five elements of mind are interrelated. Independent thinking and open- mindedness improve systems thinking and enable personal mastery, helping leaders shift and expand their mental models. Since they are all interdependent, leaders working to improve even one element of their mental approach can move forward in a significant way toward mastering their minds and becoming more effective.

Psychologists and other researchers, as well as people in all walks of life, have long recognized the importance of cognitive intelligence, or IQ, in determining a person’s success and effectiveness. In general, research shows that leaders score higher than most people on tests of cognitive ability, such as IQ tests, and that cog- nitive ability is positively associated with effective leadership.37 Increasingly, leaders and researchers are recognizing the critical importance of emotional intelligence, or EQ, as well. Some have suggested that emotion, more than cognitive ability, drives our thinking and decision making, as well as our interpersonal relationships.38 In a study of leaders, two-thirds of the difference between average and top-performing leaders was found to be due to emotional competence, with only one-third due to technical skills.39

Emotional intelligence refers to a person’s abilities to perceive, identify, under- stand, and successfully manage emotions in self and others. Being emotionally intelligent means being able to effectively manage ourselves and our relation- ships.40 The U.S. Air Force started using EQ to select recruiters after learning that the best recruiters scored higher in EQ competencies. Leaders who score high in EQ are typically more effective and rated as more effective by peers and subordinates.41

There are hundreds of emotions and more subtleties of emotion than there are words to explain them. An important ability for leaders is to understand the range of emotions people have and how these emotions may manifest themselves. One model that is useful for leaders distinguishes the major positive and negative

146

Emotional intelligence

a person’s abilities to per- ceive, identify, understand,

and successfully manage

emotions in self and others

emotions, as illustrated in Exhibit 5.4.42 These primary emotions and some of their variations are as follows:

Anger: fury, outrage, frustration, exasperation, indignation, animosity, annoyance, irritability, hostility Sadness: grief, sorrow, gloom, melancholy, self-pity, loneliness, dejection, despair, discouragement Relief: release, reassurance, ease, contentment Fear: anxiety, apprehension, nervousness, concern, consternation, wariness, edgi- ness, dread, fright, terror, panic Enjoyment: happiness, joy, delight, amusement, sensual pleasure, thrill, rapture, euphoria Love: affection, acceptance, respect, friendliness, trust, kindness, affinity, devotion, adoration, infatuation Envy: jealousy, resentment, suspicion, spite Disgust: contempt, disdain, scorn, abhorrence, aversion, distaste, revulsion Pride: satisfaction, dignity, self-esteem, fulfillment Guilt: shame, embarrassment, chagrin, remorse, humiliation, regret, mortification, contrition

Some leaders act as if people leave their emotions at home when they come to work, but we all know this isn’t true. Indeed, a key component of leadership is being emotionally connected to others and understanding how emotions affect working relationships and performance.

147

In a study of entrepreneurs, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute found that those who are more expressive of their own emotions and more in tune with the emotions of others make more money, as illustrated in Exhibit 5.5.43 One reason for this is that leaders who harness and direct the power of emotions to improve followers’ satisfaction, morale, and motivation get better results and enhance overall organizational effectiveness.

The emotional state of the leader influences the entire team, department, or organization.44 Most of us recognize that we can “catch” emotions from others. If we’re around someone who is smiling and enthusiastic, the positive emotions rub off on us. Conversely, someone in a bad mood can bring us down. At Mesa Airlines, CEO Jonathan Ornstein’s former administrative assistant says she was in charge of tracking the unpredictable and frequently short- tempered leader’s moods and warning other executives when they needed to stay away. “Sometimes he would come into the office in a bad mood … and it would set the tone for the whole office,” she says.45 This emotional contagion means that leaders who are able to maintain balance and keep themselves motivated can serve as positive role models to help motivate and inspire those around them. The energy level of the entire organization increases when leaders are optimistic and hopeful rather than angry or depressed. Interesting new research by organization behavior scientists suggests that negative emotions might spread more easily than positive ones because people’s positive emotions are generally less influenced by other people. Psychologists have also found that negative people and events have a disproportionately large effect on our emotions and moods.46

Therefore, leaders recognize the importance not only of keeping their own emo- tions in balance but also helping others manage negative emotions so they don’t infect the entire team or organization. Leaders “tune in” to the emotional state of others, bring unhealthy or negative emotions to the surface, and encourage people to explore and use positive emotion in their everyday work.47 One study found that untrained teams made up of members with high emotional intelligence performed as well as trained teams made up of members who rated low on emotional intelligence.48

Source: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Lally School of Management and Technology, as reported in BusinessWeek Frontier (February 5, 2001), p. F4.

148

As suggested by the team study just mentioned, emotions have a strong influence on performance. Much evidence points to a clear connection between people’s moods and various aspects of their performance, such as teamwork, creativity, decision making, and task performance.49 Negative moods drain energy and prevent people from doing their best.

An entire organization in a bad mood can’t succeed because people have no energy and feel anxious, disillusioned, or hopeless. In this kind of toxic work environment, most of an individual’s effort is used for emotional survival, as illustrated in Exhibit 5.6. In a positive environment, on the other hand, most of a person’s effort is available for work. When a leader is able to unlock positive emotions of joyfulness, appreciation, or love, people’s energy, creativity, and intellectual commitment expand. Employees are able to grasp more data, be more creative and resourceful in their solutions, and produce superior results. Positive emotions mean the decline of negative emotions such as sadness, anger, anxiety, and fear. Positive instead of negative emotions enable individuals to perform to the best of their abilities.50

A Gallup Management Journal survey emphasizes that leaders, especially front- line supervisors, have a lot to do with whether employees have positive or negative feelings about their work lives.51 Research into the factors affecting mood in the workplace is growing. One thing seems clear: almost everything that influences peo- ple’s moods in the workplace is under the control of leaders.52 That is why leaders need a high degree of emotional intelligence. They have to regulate their own emo- tions to remain positive and hopeful and then pull others up with them.

In discussing Abraham Lincoln’s leadership, noted historian Doris Kearns Goodwin attributes the 16th U.S. president’s almost magical touch not to charisma or political astuteness but to emotional intelligence.53 The competencies and abilities of emo- tional intelligence are grouped into four fundamental categories, as illustrated in Exhibit 5.7.54 It is important to remember that emotional intelligence can be learned and developed. Anyone can strengthen his or her abilities in these four categories.

Source: Based on “Success & the Team Climate,” Team Leadership Toolkit, Lindsay-Sherwin Company Website, http://www.lindsay

-sherwin.co.uk/guide_team_leadership/html_team_development/1_success_and_team_climate.htm (accessed May 13, 2011).

149

Self-awareness includes the ability to recognize and understand your own emotions and how they affect your life and work. It is the basis of all the other competencies. People who are in touch with their emotions are better able to guide their own lives. Leaders with a high level of self-awareness learn to trust their “gut feelings” and realize that these feelings can provide useful informa- tion about difficult decisions. Answers are not always clear as to whether to pro- pose a major deal, let an employee go, reorganize a business, or revise job responsibilities. When the answers are not available from external sources, leaders have to rely on their own feelings. This component also includes the ability to accu- rately assess your own strengths and limitations, along with a healthy sense of self- confidence.

The second key component, self-management, includes the ability to control disruptive, unproductive, or harmful emotions and desires. An interesting experiment from the 1960s sheds some light on the power of self-management. A group of four-year-olds and five-year-olds were offered a marshmallow, which the researcher placed in front of each child on the desk. Then, the children were told that if they could wait a few minutes while the researcher ran an errand, they would be given two marshmallows. Some children were unable to resist the tempta- tion of a marshmallow “right now” and ate theirs immediately. Others employed all sorts of techniques, from singing or talking to themselves to hiding under the desk, to resist their impulses and earn the reward of two marshmallows instead of one. Researchers then followed the children over a period of 20 years and found some interesting results. As young men and women, the ones who had resisted the desire to eat the marshmallow revealed a much higher ability to handle stress and embrace difficult challenges. They also were more self-confident, trustworthy, dependable,

Source: Adapted from Richard E. Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman, The Emotional Competence Inventory–University Edition (Boston, MA:

The Hay Group, 2001).

150

and tenacious in pursuing goals.55 The children who developed techniques for self-management early in life carried these with them into adulthood.

It is never too late for people to learn how to manage their emotions and impulses. Some leaders look to expert customer service representatives (CSRs) as role models. Research shows that 70 percent of customers who have a problem with a product or service are in a rage by the time they talk with a CSR. The best CSRs, such as Beverly Smith, who takes outpatient calls at a San Francisco medical center, and Zane Bond, who is the “go-to guy for angry callers” at a software company, have learned to con- trol their own emotions, remain calm, and listen with warmth and empathy. When the customer calms down, the problem can usually be fixed.56

Other characteristics in this category include trustworthiness, which means con- sistently displaying honesty and integrity; conscientiousness, which means manag- ing and honoring your responsibilities; and adaptability, which refers to the ability to adjust to changing situations and overcome obstacles. Showing initiative to seize opportunities and achieve high internal standards is also a part of self-management. Leaders skilled at self-management remain hopeful and optimistic despite obstacles, setbacks, or even outright failures. Martin Seligman, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, once advised the MetLife insurance company to hire a special group of job applicants who tested high on optimism but failed the normal sales aptitude test. Compared to salespeople who passed the regular apti- tude test but scored high on pessimism, the “optimistic” group made 21 percent more sales in their first year and 57 percent more in the second.57

The component of social awareness relates to one’s ability to understand others. Socially aware leaders practice empathy, which means being able to put yourself in other people’s shoes, sense their emotions, and understand their perspective. These leaders understand that effective leadership sometimes means pushing people beyond their comfort zone, and they are sensitive to the fear or frustration this can engender in followers. They learn to engage in “profes- sional intimacy,” which means they can display compassion and concern for others without becoming so wrapped up in others’ emotions that it clouds their judg- ment.58 Socially aware leaders are also capable of understanding divergent points of view and interacting effectively with many different types of people and emo- tions. The related characteristic of organizational awareness refers to the ability to navigate the currents of organizational life, build networks, and effectively use political behavior to accomplish positive results. This component also includes a service orientation, which refers to the ability to recognize and serve the needs of employees, customers, or clients.

Relationship management refers to the ability to con- nect with others and build positive relationships. Leaders with high emotional intelligence are aware of the impact their behaviors have on others, and they treat people with compassion, sensitivity, and kindness.59 This aspect of EQ encompasses developing others, inspiring others with a powerful vision, learning to listen and communicate clearly and convincingly, and using emotional under- standing to influence others in positive ways. Leaders use their understanding of emotions to inspire change and lead people toward something better, to build teamwork and collaboration, and to resolve conflicts that inevitably arise. These leaders cultivate and maintain a web of relationships both within and outside the organization.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can recognize

and manage your own emo-

tions so that negative feelings

don’t cloud your mind, distort

your judgment, or cripple your

ability to lead.

151

Empathy

being able to put yourself in

someone else’s shoes

Poor relationship management is one reason Jack Griffin was forced out as CEO of Time Inc. after less than six months on the job. His brusque style and inability to connect with managers doomed his job with Time. Senior executives said they feared that top managers who had to work directly with him would begin leaving the company if Griffin stayed on much longer.60

Taken together, the four components shown in Exhibit 5.7 build a strong base of emotional intelligence that leaders can use to more effectively guide teams and organizations. One research project suggests that all effective leadership styles arise from different components of emotional intelligence.61 Consider how two football coaches used emotional intelligence to effectively lead teams to the NFL Super Bowl.

John Harbaugh, Baltimore Ravens, and Jim Harbaugh, San Francisco 49ers Tony Dungy did it with the Indianapolis Colts football team. Joe Torre did it with the New York

Yankees in baseball. Now brothers John and Jim Harbaugh are doing it with the Baltimore

Ravens and San Francisco 49ers. Each of these coaches has been noted for a new approach to

sports team leadership—using emotional intelligence to bring out the best in players.

The Harbaughs, who gained the world’s attention when their teams competed against

each other in the NFL Super Bowl in 2013, both created cultures that inspired players to

connect with one another and accomplish amazing results. Everything about leading a foot-

ball team, they believe, comes down to relationships. Jim Harbaugh makes a point of talking

with his players and coaches about their families and lives off the field. John Harbaugh

grounds his leadership in solid values and principles, but allows players to make many deci-

sions. “It’s never been my way or the highway,” he says. Both coaches emphasize listening

as a key to success. 62

John and Jim Harbaugh have created the kind of workplace that many of today’s organizations want—one in which leaders are more interactive than “command-and-control,” where leadership is spread across all levels, and where individual goals are met through teamwork, connection, and collaboration. In an environment where relationships with employees and customers are becoming more important than technology and material resources, interest in developing lea- ders’ emotional intelligence continues to grow. Moreover, there is growing evidence that emotional intelligence has a positive influence on many aspects of leader performance.63

A high level of self-awareness and an ability to manage one’s own emotions enable a leader to display self-confidence, earn respect and trust, and consider the needs of others. Emotionally competent leaders are more resilient, more adaptable to ever-changing circumstances, more willing to step outside their comfort zone, and more open to the opinions and ideas of others.64

Perhaps most importantly, emotional intelligence enables leaders to recognize and respect followers as whole human beings with feelings, opinions, and ideas of their own. They can use their emotional intelligence to help followers grow and develop, see and enhance their self-image and feelings of self-worth, and help meet their needs and achieve personal and organizational goals.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can empathize

with others, treat people with

compassion and sensitivity,

build teamwork, and learn to

listen, interpret emotions, and

resolve interpersonal conflicts.

NEW LEADER

Evaluate your level of emo-

tional intelligence by complet-

ing the questionnaire in

Leader’s Self-Insight 5.2.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can develop

emotional intelligence and act

as a positive role model by

being optimistic and

enthusiastic.

152

Traditionally, leadership has been based on inspiring fear in employees. An unspo- ken notion among many senior-level executives is that fear is a good thing and ben- efits the organization.65 Indeed, fear can be a powerful motivator, but many of today’s leaders are learning that an environment that reflects care and respect for people is much more effective than one in which people are fearful. When organiza- tional success depended primarily on people mindlessly following orders, leading with fear often met the organization’s needs. Today, though, success in most orga- nizations depends on the knowledge, mindpower, commitment, creativity, and enthusiasm of everyone in the organization. A fear-based organization loses its best people, and the knowledge they take with them, to other firms. In addition,

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: For each of the following items, rate how well you display the behavior described. Before responding, try to think of actual situations in which you have had the opportunity to use the behavior. Indicate whether each item below is Mostly False or Mostly True for you.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. Associate different internal physiological cues with different emotions.

2. Relax when under pressure in situations.

3. Know the impact that your be- havior has on others.

4. Initiate successful resolution of conflict with others.

5. Know when you are becoming angry.

6. Recognize when others are distressed.

7. Build consensus with others. 8. Produce motivation when doing

uninteresting work. 9. Help others manage their

emotions. 10. Make others feel good. 11. Identify when you experience

mood shifts. 12. Stay calm when you are the

target of anger from others. 13. Know when you become

defensive. 14. Follow your words with actions.

15. Engage in intimate conversations with others.

16. Accurately reflect people’s feel- ings back to them.

Scoring and Interpretation

Sum your Mostly True responses to the 16 questions to obtain your overall emotional intelligence score. Your score for self-awareness is the total of questions 1, 5, 11, and 13. Your score for self-management is the total of questions 2, 8, 12, and 14. Your score for social awareness is the sum of questions 3, 6, 9, and 15. Your score for relationship man- agement is the sum of questions 4, 7, 10, and 16. This ques- tionnaire provides some indication of your emotional intelligence. If you received a total score of 14 or more, you are certainly considered a person with high emotional intelligence. A score from 10 to 13 means you have a good platform of emotional intelligence from which to develop your leadership capability. A score of 7 to 9 would be mod- erate emotional intelligence. A score below 7 indicates that you realize that you are probably below average in emo- tional intelligence.

For each of the four components of emotional intelligence—self-awareness, self-management, social aware- ness, and relationship management—a score of 4 is consid- ered high, whereas a score of 2 or fewer would be considered low. Review the discussion in this chapter about the four components of emotional intelligence and think about what you might do to develop those areas where you scored low. Compare your scores to those of other students. What can you do to improve your scores?

Source: Adapted from Hendrie Weisinger, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), pp. 214–215.

NEW LEADER

To learn about your own

motivations concerning

love versus fear, complete

the exercise in Leader’s

Self-Insight 5.3.

153

even if people stay with the organization, they typically don’t perform up to their real capabilities. As discussed earlier, there is evidence that people who experience positive emotions at work perform better.66

Showing respect and trust also allows people to feel emotionally connected with their work so that their lives are richer and more balanced. Leaders can rely on nega- tive emotions such as fear to fuel productive work, but by doing so they may slowly destroy people’s spirits, which ultimately is bad for employees and the organization.67

Consider, for example, that two-thirds of employees surveyed said their performance declined after being the victim of rudeness or hostility at work. Four out of five said they lost work time fretting about the unpleasant incident, three-quarters said their commitment to their employer declined, and 12 percent even quit their jobs.68

The workplace can hold many kinds of fear, including fear of failure, fear of change, fear of personal loss, fear of being judged, and fear of the boss. All of these fears can prevent people from doing their best, from taking risks, and from challenging and changing the status quo. Consider how Akshay Kothari and Ankit Gupta had to overcome their fears to create one of the 50 original apps in Apple’s App Store Hall of Fame.

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: The following items describe reasons why you work. the first time for doing work (or homework) that is not your favorite and the second time for doing a hobby or sports activity that you enjoy.

. Indicate whether each item below is Mostly False or Mostly True for you.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I feel it is important to perform well so I don’t look bad.

2. I have to force myself to com- plete the task.

3. I don’t want to have a poor out- come or get a poor grade.

4. I don’t want to embarrass myself or do less well than others.

5. The experience leaves me feeling relieved that it is over.

6. My attention is absorbed entirely in what I am doing.

7. I really enjoy the experience. 8. Time seems to pass more quickly

than normal. 9. I am completely focused on the

task at hand.

10. The experience leaves me feeling great.

Scoring and Interpretation

These items reflect motivation shaped by either love or fear. Your “fear of failure” score is the number of Mostly True answers for questions 1–5. Your “love of task” score is the number of Mostly True answers for questions 6–10. A score of 4 or 5 would be considered high for either love or fear, and a score of 0–2 would be considered low. You would probably score more points for “love of task” for your hobby or sports activity than for homework.

Some people are motivated by high internal standards and fear of not meeting those standards. This may be called fear of failure, which often spurs people to great accom- plishment. Love of task provides a great intrinsic pleasure but won’t always lead to high achievement. Love of task is related to the idea of “flow” wherein people become fully engaged and derive great satisfaction from their activity. Would love or fear influence your choice to become a leader or how you try to motivate others? Discuss with other stu- dents the relative importance of love or fear motivation in your lives.

Love in the workplace means genuinely caring for others and sharing one’s knowledge, understanding, and compassion to enable others to grow and succeed.

154

Akshay Kothari and Ankit Gupta, Pulse News Akshay Kothari and Ankit Gupta were graduate students at Stanford University’s acclaimed

d.school (formally known as the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design) when they took a class

designed to get people out of their comfort zone so they could confront and overcome

the fears that stand in the way of creativity and goal achievement.

Both were self-described “geeks.” Although they were technically brilliant, shyness often

prevented them from pursuing goals that involved too much interaction with people. To

fight the fear, they decided to work on their class project—a news reader for the then

newly released iPad—at a café off campus. Approaching strangers and asking for feedback

on their ideas and prototype was definitely a stretch for the two, and the negative feedback

often hurt.

But, over time, Akshay says, they went “from people saying ‘This is crap,’ to ‘Is this app

preloaded on every iPad?‘” The result of their project, Pulse News, was praised by Steve Jobs

at a worldwide developer’s conference, won the prestigious Apple Design award, and has

been downloaded by more than 20 million people. 69

Overcoming their fears not only enabled Akshay Kothari and Ankit Gupta to complete a successful class project, it gave them the confidence to found a company that revolutionized the mobile news reading experience. Pulse is expanding into social media with the addition of Pulse Highlights, which allows users to see when their friends have shared the story they are reading. That means people can go to Pulse not only to read content from sites they trust but also to discover new sources and stories.70

Fear gets in the way of people feeling good about their work, themselves, and the organization. It creates an atmosphere in which people feel powerless, so that their confidence, commitment, enthusiasm, imagination, and motivation are diminished.71 One major drawback of leading with fear is that it creates avoidance behavior because no one wants to make a mistake. Fear in the workplace weakens trust and communication. Employees feel threat- ened by repercussions if they speak up about work-related concerns. A survey of employees in 22 organizations found that 70 percent of them “bit their tongues” at work because they feared repercussions. Twenty-seven percent reported that they feared losing their credibility or reputation if they spoke up. Other fears reported were lack of career advancement, possible damage to the relationship with their supervisor, demotion or losing their job, and being embarrassed or humiliated in front of others.72 When people are afraid to speak up, important issues are suppressed and problems hidden. Employees are afraid to talk about a wide range of issues, but by far the largest category of “undiscussables” is the behavior of executives, particularly their interpersonal and relationship skills. When leaders inspire fear, they destroy the opportunity for feedback, blinding them to reality and denying them the chance to correct damaging decisions and behaviors.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can choose to

lead with love, not with fear.

You can show respect and trust

toward followers and help

people learn, grow, and con-

tribute their best to achieve

the organization’s vision.

155

Leaders control the fear level in the organization. Exhibit 5.8 outlines some indicators of love-based versus fear-based leadership in organizations.73

Organizations driven by love are marked by openness and authenticity, a respect for diverse viewpoints, and emphasis on positive interpersonal relationships. Organizations driven by fear, on the other hand, are characterized by cautiousness and secrecy, blaming others, excessive control, and emotional distance among people. The relationship between an employee and his or her direct supervisor is the primary factor determining the level of fear experienced at work. Unfortunately, the legacy of fear and mistrust asso- ciated with traditional hierarchies in which bosses gave orders and employees jumped to obey “or else” still colors life in many organizations. Leaders can create a new environ- ment that enables people to feel safe speaking their minds. Leaders can act from love rather than fear to free employees and the organization from the chains of the past.

Leaders can learn to bind people together for a shared purpose through positive forces such as caring and compassion, listening, and connecting to others on a per- sonal level. The emotion that attracts people to take risks, learn, grow, and move the organization forward comes from love, not fear. Leaders should also remember that love is more than a feeling; to be a real force, it is translated into behavior.

Caution and secrecy Openness and authenticity, even when it’s difficult

Blaming and attacking Understanding diverse viewpoints

Excessive control Expecting others to do great things

Sideline criticalness Involvement and discernment

Coming unglued Keeping perspective

Aloofness and distance Interpersonal connection

Resistance hidden Resistance out in open, explored

Source: Daniel Holden, “Team Development: A Search for Elegance,” Industrial Management (September-October 2007), pp. 20–25.

Consider

Army Staff Sgt. Ian Newland saw the enemy grenade land in his Humvee. In the next instant, his friend Ross McGinnis threw himself onto that grenade. “I try not to live my life in vain for what he’s done,” said Newland. When asked why McGinnis did it, Newland simply said, “He loved us.”

During the Iraq war, at least five U.S. soldiers died because they used their own bodies to shield their comrades from grenades. “What a decision that is,” said Temple University psychologist Frank Farley. “I can’t think of anything more profound in human nature.” A Navy lieutenant said of a comrade who sacrificed his life by blocking a grenade thrown onto a rooftop near his team, “You think about him every day. And everything pretty much revolves around what he did.”

Source: Based on Gregg Zoroya, “Coping After a Hero Dies Saving You in Iraq,” (September 20, 2007).

156

Stephen Covey points out that in all the great literature, love is a verb rather than a noun.74 Love is something you do, the sacrifices you make, and the giving of yourself to others, as illustrated by the poignant story in this chapter’s Consider This! on page 156.

Organizations have traditionally rewarded people for strong qualities such as ratio- nal thinking, ambition, and competitiveness. These qualities are important, but their overemphasis has left many organizational leaders out of touch with their softer, caring, creative capabilities, unable to make emotional connections with others and afraid to risk showing any sign of weakness or emotion. What does it mean to lead with love? In all groups and organizations feelings of compassion, respect, and loyalty are trans- lated into action, such as acts of friendliness, teamwork, cooperation, listening, under- standing, and serving others above oneself. Sentiments emerge as action. Exhibit 5.9 shows results of an exercise in which people reported what they do to show others they care and what if feels like to be cared about. Leaders who fail often do so because they are blind to the importance of the attributes in Exhibit 5.9. Sometimes leaders act from their own fear, which creates fear in others. A leader’s fear can manifest itself in arrogance, selfishness, deception, unfairness, and disrespect for others.75

Most people yearn for more than a paycheck from their jobs. Leaders who lead with love have extraordinary influence because they meet five unspoken employee needs:

Hear and understand me.

Even if you disagree with me, please don’t make me wrong.

Acknowledge the greatness within me.

Remember to look for my loving intentions.

Tell me the truth with compassion.76

1. reach out

2. embrace, hug

3. be there with them

4. compassion

5. acceptance

6. share dreams

7. acknowledge accomplishments

8. trust

9. encourage

10. be a cheerleader

11. tell you care

12. relate feelings

13. respect them

14. be positive

15. give them a smile

16. give them time

17. give them recognition

18. protect

19. reassure

20. celebrate with

1. valuable

2. alive

3. responsive

4. positive outlook

5. exhilarated

6. respect

7. free

8. important

9. good

10. safe

11. more open to express yourself

12. elevates self-esteem

13. boosts morale

14. proud

15. loved

16. worthy

17. blessed

18. you make a difference

19. fulfilled

20. happy

*These are the actual, unedited words called out by participants and written on a white board during a seminar at which people

were asked these two questions.

Quality. Reprinted with permission from the authors.

157

When leaders address these subtle emotional needs directly, people typically respond by loving their work and becoming emotionally engaged in solving prob- lems and serving customers. Enthusiasm for work and the organization increases. People want to believe that their leaders genuinely care. From the followers’ point of view, love versus fear has different motivational potential.

Fear-based motivation: I need a job to pay for my basic needs (fulfilling lower needs of the body). You give me a job and I will give you just enough to keep my job. Love-based motivation: If the job and the leader make me feel valued as a person and provide a sense of meaning and contribution to the community at large (fulfill- ing higher needs of heart, mind, and body), then I will give you all I have to offer.77

Many examples throughout this book illustrate what happens when positive emotion is used. One management consultant went so far as to advise that finding creative ways to love could solve every imaginable leadership problem.78 Rational thinking and technical skills are important, but leading with love builds trust, sti- mulates creativity, inspires commitment, and unleashes boundless energy.

Leaders can develop their capacity for the positive emotions of love and caring. When Walt Bettinger, president and CEO of Charles Schwab, was in college, he learned a lesson he tries to apply every day. The professor handed each student a blank sheet of paper and gave them one final exam question: What’s the name of the lady who cleans this building? The students had spent four hours a night twice a week in the building for 10 weeks, encountering the cleaning lady several times a night as they went to get a soft drink or use the restroom. Bettinger says, “I didn’t know Dottie’s name—her name was Dottie—but I’ve tried to know every Dottie since.”79

Now that you’ve read the chapter, check out how today’s leaders are applying these concepts. LogintoCengageNOW tofollowtheleadersonTwitter.

Leaders use emotional as well as intellectual capabilities and understandings to guide organizations through a turbulent environment and help people feel energized, motivated, and cared for in the face of rapid change, uncertainty, and job insecurity. People can learn to be whole leaders who lead with both the head and the heart. Leaders should be aware of how their mental models affect their thinking and may cause “blind spots” that limit understanding. Becoming aware of assump- tions is a first step toward shifting or expanding one’s mental model and being able to see the world in new and different ways. One challenge for today’s lea- ders is developing a global mindset. Four key issues important to expanding and developing a leader’s mind are independent thinking, open-mindedness, systems thinking, and personal mas- tery. Personal mastery involves clarity of mind, clarity of objectives, and an organized system for achieving objectives. Leaders should also understand the importance of emotions and emotional intelligence. Understanding emotions is imperative because emotions are conta- gious and emotions influence individuals’ performance.

Fear-based motivation

motivation based on fear of

losing a job

Love-based motivation

motivation based on feeling

valued in the job

158

Four basic components of emotional intelligence are self-awareness, self- management, social awareness, and relationship management. Emotionally intelligent leaders can have a positive impact on organizations by helping employees grow, learn, and develop; creating a sense of purpose and mean- ing; instilling unity and team spirit; and basing relationships on trust and respect, which allows employees to take risks and fully contribute to the organization. Traditional organizations have relied on fear as a motivator. Although fear does motivate people, it prevents people from feeling good about their work and often causes avoidance behavior. Fear can reduce trust and communication so that important problems and issues are hidden or suppressed. Leaders can choose to lead with love instead of fear. Love can be thought of as a motiva- tional force that enables people to feel alive, connected, and energized. People respond to love because it meets unspoken needs for respect and affirmation. Rational thinking is important to leadership, but it takes love to build trust, creativity, and enthusiasm.

1. How do you feel about developing the emotional qualities of yourself and other people in the organization as a way to be an effective leader? Discuss.

2. What does it mean to be a whole leader as described in the chapter? Can you give an example from your experience? Discuss.

3. Why is it so hard for people to change their assumptions? What are some specific rea- sons why leaders need to be aware of their mental models?

4. Discuss the similarities and differences between mental models and open-mindedness.

5. What is the concept of personal mastery? How important is it to a leader?

6. Which of the four elements of emotional intelligence do you consider most essential to an effective leader? Why?

7. Consider fear and love as potential motivators. Which is the best source of motivation for college students? For members of a new product development team? For top execu- tives at a media conglomerate? Why?

8. Have you ever experienced love and/or fear from leaders at work? How did you respond? Is it possible that leaders might carry love too far and create negative rather than positive results? Discuss.

9. Do you think it is appropriate for a leader to spend time developing people’s emotional intelligence? Why or why not?

10. Think about the class for which you are reading this text as a system. How might mak- ing changes without whole-systems thinking cause problems for students?

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Mentors Think of a time when someone reached out to you as a mentor or coach. This might have been a time when you were having some difficulty and the person who reached out would have done so out of concern for you rather than for their own self-interest.

159

Below, briefly describe the situation, who the mentor was, and what the mentor did for you.

Mentoring comes from the heart, is a generous act, and is usually deeply appreciated by the recipient. How does it feel to recall the situation in which a mentor assisted you?

Share your experience with one or more students. What are the common characteristics that mentors possess based on your combined experiences?

A discussion of experiences with mentors is excellent for small groups. The instruc- tor can ask each group to identify the common characteristics that their mentors displayed and each group’s conclusions can be written on the board. From these lists of mentor char- acteristics, common themes associated with mentors can be defined. The instructor can ask the class the following questions: What are the key characteristics of mentors? Based on the key mentor characteristics, is effective mentoring based more on a person’s heart or mind? Will you (the student) reach out as a mentor to others in life, and how will you do it? What factors might prevent you from doing so?

Check out CengageNOW for additional cases with interactive activities.

C f i The New Boss

Sam Nolan clicked the mouse for one more round of solitaire on the computer in his den. He’d been at it for more than an hour, and his wife had long ago given up trying to per- suade him to join her for a movie or a rare Saturday night on the town. The mind-numbing game seemed to be all that calmed Sam down enough to stop agonizing about work and how his job seemed to get worse every day.

Nolan was chief information officer at Century Medical, a large medical products com- pany based in Connecticut. He had joined the company four years ago, and since that time Century had made great progress integrating technology into its systems and processes. Nolan had already led projects to design and build two highly successful systems for Century. One was a benefits-administration system for the company’s human resources department. The other was a complex Web-based purchasing system that streamlined the process of pur- chasing supplies and capital goods. Although the system had been up and running for only a few months, modest projections were that it would save Century nearly $2 million annually. The new Web-based system dramatically cut the time needed for processing requests and plac- ing orders. Purchasing managers now had more time to work collaboratively with key stake- holders to identify and select the best suppliers and negotiate better deals.

Nolan thought wearily of all the hours he had put in developing trust with people throughout the company and showing them how technology could not only save time and

160

money but also support team-based work, encourage open information sharing, and give people more control over their own jobs. He smiled briefly as he recalled one long-term HR employee, 61-year-old Ethel Moore. She had been terrified when Nolan first began showing her the company’s intranet, but she was now one of his biggest supporters. In fact, it had been Ethel who had first approached him with an idea about a Web-based job posting sys- tem. The two had pulled together a team and developed an idea for linking Century man- agers, internal recruiters, and job applicants using artificial intelligence software on top of an integrated Web-based system. When Nolan had presented the idea to his boss, executive vice president Sandra Ivey, she had enthusiastically endorsed it. Within a few weeks the team had authorization to proceed with the project.

But everything began to change when Ivey resigned her position six months later to take a plum job in New York. Ivey’s successor, Tom Carr, seemed to have little interest in the project. During their first meeting, Carr had openly referred to the project as a waste of time and money. He immediately disapproved several new features suggested by the com- pany’s internal recruiters, even though the project team argued that the features could dou- ble internal hiring and save millions in training costs. “Just stick to the original plan and get it done. All this stuff needs to be handled on a personal basis anyway,” Carr countered. “You can’t learn more from a computer than you can talking to real people—and as for internal recruiting, it shouldn’t be so hard to talk to people if they’re already working right here in the company.” Carr seemed to have no understanding of how and why technology was being used. He became irritated when Ethel Moore referred to the system as “Web-based.” He boasted that he had never visited Century’s intranet site and suggested that “this Internet obsession” would blow over in a few years anyway. Even Ethel’s enthusi- asm couldn’t get through to him. “Technology is for those people in the IS department. My job is people, and yours should be, too,” Carr shouted. Near the end of the meeting, Carr even jokingly suggested that the project team should just buy a couple of good filing cabinets and save everyone some time and money.

Nolan sighed and leaned back in his chair. The whole project had begun to feel like a joke. The vibrant and innovative human resources department his team had imagined now seemed like nothing more than a pipe dream. But despite his frustration, a new thought entered Nolan’s mind: “Is Carr just stubborn and narrow-minded or does he have a point that HR is a people business that doesn’t need a high-tech job posting system?”

QUESTIONS

1. Describe the two different mental models represented in this story.

2. What are some of the assumptions that shape the mindset of Sam Nolan? Of Tom Carr?

3. Do you think it is possible for Carr to shift to a new mental model? If you were Sam Nolan, what would you do?

Sources: Based on Carol Hildebrand, “New Boss Blues,” CIO Enterprise, Section 2 (November 15, 1998), pp. 53–58; and Megan Santosus, “Advanced Micro Devices’ Web-Based Purchasing System,” CIO, Section 1 (May 15, 1998), p. 84. A version of this case originally appeared in Richard L. Daft, Organization Theory and Design, 7th ed. (Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, 2001), pp. 270–271.

The USS The atmosphere in a Trident nuclear submarine is generally calm and quiet. Even pipe joints are cushioned to prevent noise that might tip off a pursuer. The Trident ranks among the world’s most dangerous weapons—swift, silent, and armed with 24 long-range missiles carrying 192 nuclear warheads. Trident crews are the cream of the Navy crop, and even the sailors who fix the plumbing exhibit a white-collar decorum. The culture aboard ship is a low-key, collegial one in which sailors learn to speak softly and share close quarters with an ever-changing roster of shipmates. Being subject to strict security restrictions enhances a sense of elitism and pride. To move up and take charge of a Trident submarine is an extraordinary

161

feat in the Navy—fewer than half the officers qualified for such commands ever get them. When Michael Alfonso took charge of the USS Florida, the crew welcomed his arrival. They knew he was one of them—a career Navy man who joined up as a teenager and moved up through the ranks. Past shipmates remembered him as basically a loner, who could be brusque but generally pleasant enough. Neighbors on shore found Alfonso to be an unfailingly polite man who kept mostly to himself.

The crew’s delight in their new captain was short-lived. Commander Alfonso moved swiftly to assume command, admonishing his sailors that he would push them hard. He wasn’t joking— soon after the Florida slipped into deep waters to begin a postoverhaul shakedown cruise, the new captain loudly and publicly reprimanded those whose performance he considered lacking. Chief Petty Officer Donald MacArthur, chief of the navigation division, was only one of those who suf- fered Alfonso’s anger personally. During training exercises, MacArthur was having trouble keep- ing the boat at periscope depth because of rough seas. Alfonso announced loudly, “You’re disqualified.” He then precipitously relieved him of his diving duty until he could be recertified by extra practice. Word of the incident spread quickly. Crew members, accustomed to the Navy’s adage of “praise in public, penalize in private,” were shocked. It didn’t take long for this type of behavior to have an impact on the crew, according to Petty Officer Aaron Carmody: “Peo- ple didn’t tell him when something was wrong. You’re not supposed to be afraid of your captain, to tell him stuff. But nobody wanted to.”

The captain’s outbursts weren’t always connected with job performance. He bawled out the supply officer, the executive officer, and the chief of the boat because the soda dispenser he used to pour himself a glass of Coke one day contained Mr. Pibb instead. He exploded when he arrived unexpectedly at a late-night meal and found the fork at his place setting missing. Soon, a newslet- ter titled The Underground was being circulated by the boat’s plumbers, who used sophomoric humor to spread the word about the captain’s outbursts over such petty matters. By the time the sub reached Hawaii for its “Tactical Readiness Evaluation,” an intense week-long series of inspec- tions by staff officers, the crew was almost completely alienated. Although the ship tested well, inspectors sent word to Rear Admiral Paul Sullivan that something seemed to be wrong on board, with severely strained relations between captain and crew. On the Trident’s last evening of patrol, much of the crew celebrated with a film night—they chose The Caine Mutiny and Crimson Tide, both movies about Navy skippers who face mutinies and are relieved of command at sea. When Humphrey Bogart, playing the captain of the fictional USS Caine, exploded over a missing quart of strawberries, someone shouted, “Hey, sound familiar?”

When they reached home port, the sailors slumped ashore. “Physically and mentally, we were just beat into the ground,” recalls one. Concerned about reports that the crew seemed “despondent,” Admiral Sullivan launched an informal inquiry that eventually led him to relieve Alfonso of his command. It was the first-ever firing of a Trident submarine com- mander. “He had the chance of a lifetime to experience the magic of command, and he squandered it,” Sullivan said. “Fear and intimidation lead to certain ruin.” Alfonso himself seemed dumbfounded by Admiral Sullivan’s actions, pointing out that the USS Florida under his command posted “the best-ever grades assigned for certifications and inspections for a postoverhaul Trident submarine.”

QUESTIONS

1. Analyze Alfonso’s impact on the crew in terms of love versus fear. What might account for the fact that he behaved so strongly as captain of the USS Florida?

2. Which do you think a leader should be more concerned about aboard a nuclear submarine— high certification grades or high-quality interpersonal relationships? Do you agree with Admiral Sullivan’s decision to fire Alfonso? Discuss.

3. Discuss Commander Alfonso’s level of emotional intelligence in terms of the four com- ponents listed in the chapter. What advice would you give him?

Source: Based on Thomas E. Ricks, “A Skipper’s Chance to Run a Trident Sub Hits Stormy Waters,” The Wall Street Journal (November 20, 1997), pp. A1, A6.

162

1. Thomas E Ricks, “Charmed Forces: Army’s ‘Baby Generals’ Take a Crash Course in Sensitivity Training,” The Wall Street Journal (January 19, 1998), p. A1.

2. Warren Bennis, quoted in Tricia Bisoux, “What Makes Great Leaders,” BizEd (September–October 2005), pp. 40–45.

3. Stacey Philpot, “Whole Leadership,” Leadership Excellence (July 2010), p. 6.

4. This basic idea is found in a number of sources, among them Jack Hawley, Reawakening the Spirit in Work (San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler, 1993); Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by the Brothers of the English Dominican Province, rev. by Daniel J. Sullivan (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984); and Stephen Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change (New York: Fireside Books/Simon & Schuster, 1990).

5. W. B. Rouse and N. M. Morris, “On Looking Into the Black Box: Prospects and Limits in the Search for Mental Models,” Psychological Bulletin 100 (1986), pp. 349–363; Beng-Chong Lim and Katherine J. Klein, “Team Mental Models and Team Performance: A Field Study of the Effects of Team Mental Model Similarity and Accuracy,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 27 (2006), pp. 403–418; Vanessa Urch Druskat and Anthony T. Pescosolido, “The Content of Effective Teamwork Mental Models in Self-Managing Teams: Ownership, Learning, and Heedful Interrelating,” Human Relations 55, no. 3 (2002), pp. 283–314; and Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Double- day, 1990).

6. From Robert Townsend, Up the Organization, quoted in “Everything You Wanted to Know about Leadership, from the Man Who Broke All the Rules,” The Conference Board Review (September–October 2007), pp. 37–41.

7. Adam Lashinsky, “Chaos by Design,” Fortune (October 2, 2006), pp. 86–98.

8. The following discussion is based partly on Robert C. Benfari, Understanding and Changing Your Management Style (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999), pp. 66–93.

9. Stephanie Clifford, “Chief’s Silicon Valley Stardom Quickly Clashed at J.C. Penney,” The New York Times (April 9, 2013), http://www .nytimes.com/2013/04/10/business/how-an-apple-star-lost-his-luster -at-penneys.html?emc=eta1&_r=0 (accessed April 24, 2013); Stephanie Clifford, “J.C. Penney Ousts Chief of 17 Months,” The New York Times, April 8, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04 /09/business/ron-johnson-out-as-jc-penney-chief.html?pagewanted =all&_r=0 (accessed April 24, 2013); and Andrew Ross Sorkin, “A Dose of Realism for the Chief of J.C. Penney,” The New York Times, November 12, 2011, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/a -dose-of-realism-for-the-chief-of-j-c-penney/ (accessed March 26, 2013).

10. Anthony J. Mayo and Nitin Nohria, In Their Time: The Greatest Business Leaders of the 20th Century (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2005).

11. Prasad Kajpa, “Steve Jobs and the Art of Mental Model Innovation,” Ivey Business Journal (May–June 2012), http://www.iveybusiness journal.com/topics/leadership/steve-jobs-and-the-art-of-mental -model-innovation (accessed March 26, 2013); David J. Glew, Stephen C. Harper, and Jonathan D. Rowe, “Is Your Organization a Target?” Industrial Management (November–December 2010), pp. 15–20; Geoffrey Colvin, “The Most Valuable Quality in a Manager,”

Fortune (December 29, 1997), pp. 279–280; and Marlene Piturro, “Mindshift,” Management Review (May 1999), pp. 46–51.

12. Kajpa, “Steve Jobs and the Art of Mental Model Innovation.”

13. Glew et al., “Is Your Organization a Target?”; Gary Hamel, “Why … It’s Better to Question Answers Than to Answer Questions,” Across the Board (November–December 2000), pp. 42–46; and Jane C. Linder and Susan Cantrell, “It’s All in the Mind (set),” Across the Board (May–June 2002), pp. 39–42.

14. This section is based on Schon Beechler and Dennis Baltzley, “Creating a Global Mindset,” Chief Learning Officer (May 29, 2008), http://clomedia.com/articles/view/creating_a_global_mindset/1 (accessed June 26, 2012); Mansour Javidan and Jennie L. Walker, “A Whole New Global Mindset for Leadership,” People & Strategy 35, no. 2 (2012), pp. 36–41; and Stephen L. Cohen, “Effective Global Leadership Requires a Global Mindset,” Industrial and Commercial Training 42, no. 1 (2010), pp. 3–10.

15. Definition based on Mansour Javidan and Mary B. Teagarden, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Mindset,” Advances in Global Leadership 6 (2011), pp. 13–39; and Beechler and Baltzley, “Creating a Global Mindset.”

16. Ken Powell, interviewed by Beth Kowitt, “Move Beyond Your Comfort Zone,” Fortune (May 4, 2009), p. 48.

17. Based in part on Lauren A. E. Schuker, “Plot Change: Foreign Forces Transform Hollywood Films,” The Wall Street Journal (July 31, 2010), p. A1; and Nicole Allan, “How to Make a Hollywood Hit,” The Atlantic (May 2012), pp. 70–71.

18. Quoted in Schuker, “Plot Change.”

19. Anil K. Gupta and Vijay Govindarajan, “Cultivating a Global Mindset,” Academy of Management Executive 16, no. 1 (2002), pp. 116–126.

20. Hamel, “Why … It’s Better to Question Answers Than to Answer Questions”; Geoffrey Colvin, “Managing in Chaos,” Fortune (October 2, 2006), pp. 76–82.

21. Example cited in Janet Rae-Dupree, “Innovative Minds Don’t Think Alike,” The New York Times (December 30, 2007), http://www .nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30know.html?pagewanted =all&_r=0 (accessed December 30, 2007).

22. Daniel Levinthal and Claus Rerup, “Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-Mindful Perspectives on Organizational Learning,” Organization Science 17, no. 4 (August 2006), pp. 502–513; and Ellen Langer and John Sviokla, “An Evaluation of Charisma from the Mindfulness Perspective,” unpublished manu- script, Harvard University. Part of this discussion is also drawn from Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel, Fusion Leadership: Unlocking the Subtle Forces That Change People and Organizations (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1998).

23. Based on Michael Chaskalson, The Mindful Workplace (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011); Ellen J. Langer, “Minding Matters: The Consequences of Mindlessness-Mindfulness,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 22, L. Berkowitz, ed. (San Diego: Academic Press, 1989), pp. 137–173; and Levinthal and Rerup, “Crossing an Apparent Chasm.”

24. Bauback Yeganeh, “Mindful Leader,” Leadership Excellence (March 2012), p. 7.

25. Matt Richtel, “Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price,” The New York Times (June 6, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06 /07/technology/07brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed June 7, 2010).

163

26. T. K. Das, “Educating Tomorrow’s Managers: The Role of Critical Thinking,” The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 2, no. 4 (October 1994), pp. 333–360.

27. Russell Gold and Neil King Jr. “The Gulf Oil Spill: Red Flags Were Ignored Aboard Doomed Rig,” The Wall Street Journal (May 13, 2010), p. A6.

28. Bernard M. Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: The Free Press, 1985); and B. M. Bass, New Paradigm Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership (Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1996).

29. The Pike Syndrome has been discussed in multiple sources.

30. Janet Rae-Dupree, “Innovative Minds Don’t Think Alike” (December 30, 2007), p. 3.3.

31. Jerome Groopman, “Mental Malpractice: (Op-Ed column),” The New York Times (July 7, 2007), p. A13.

32. Chris Argyris, Flawed Advice and the Management Trap (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); and Eileen C. Shapiro, “Managing in the Cappuccino Economy” (review of Flawed Advice), Harvard Business Review (March–April 2000), pp. 177–183.

33. This section is based on Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1990); John D. Sterman, “Systems Dynamics Modeling: Tools for Learning in a Complex World,” California Management Review 43, no. 4 (Summer, 2001), pp. 8–25; Andrea Gabor, “Seeing Your Company as a System,” Strategy Business (Summer 2010), http:// www.strategy-business.com/article/10210?gko=20cca (accessed June 20, 2012); and Ron Zemke, “Systems Thinking,” Training (February 2001), pp. 40–46.

34. This example is cited in Sterman, “Systems Dynamics Modeling.”

35. Peter M. Senge, Charlotte Roberts, Richard B. Ross, Bryan J. Smith, and Art Kleiner, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (New York: Currency/Doubleday, 1994), p. 87.

36. Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline; and David Allen, Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity (New York: Viking Penguin, 2001).

37. Timothy A. Judge, Amy E. Colbert, and Remus Ilies, “Intelligence and Leadership: A Quantitative Review and Test of Theoretical Proposi- tions,” Journal of Applied Psychology (June 2004), pp. 542–552.

38. Sigal G. Barsade and Donald E. Gibson, “Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations?” Academy of Management Perspectives 21, no. 1 (February 2007), pp. 36–59; Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (New York: Bantam Books, 1995); John D. Mayer and David Caruso, “The Effective Leader: Under- standing and Applying Emotional Intelligence,” Ivey Business Journal (November–December 2002); Pamela Kruger, “A Leader’s Journey,” Fast Company (June 1999), pp. 116–129; and Hendrie Weisinger, Emotional Intelligence at Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998).

39. Study by Daniel Goleman, co-chairman of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, reported in Diann Daniel, “Soft Skills for CIOs and Aspiring CIOs: Four Ways to Boost Your Emotional Intelligence,” CIO (June 25, 2007), http:// www.cio.com (accessed October 18, 2007).

40. Based on Goleman, Emotional Intelligence; Goleman, “Leadership That Gets Results,” Harvard Business Review (March–April 2000), pp. 79–90; J. D. Mayer, D. R. Caruso, and P. Salovey, “Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for an Intelligence,” Intelligence 27, no. 4 (1999), pp. 266–298; Neal M. Ashkanasy and Catherine S. Daus, “Emotion in the Workplace: The New Challenge for Managers,” Academy of Management Executive 16, no.1 (2002), pp. 76–86; and Weisinger, Emotional Intelligence at Work.

41. Studies reported in Stephen Xavier, “Are You at the Top of Your Game? Checklist for Effective Leaders,” Journal of Business Strategy

26, no. 3 (2005), pp. 35–42; and Joyce E. Bono and Remus Ilies, “Charisma, Positive Emotions, and Mood Contagion,” The Leader- ship Quarterly 17 (2006), pp. 317–334.

42. This section is based in part on Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, pp. 289–290.

43. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Lally School of Management and Technology, as reported in BusinessWeek Frontier (February 5, 2001), p. F4.

44. This discussion is based on V. Vijayalakshmi and Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya, “Emotional Contagion and Its Relevance to Indivi- dual Behavior and Organizational Processes: A Position Paper,” Journal of Business Psychology 27 (2012), pp. 363–374; E. Hatfield, J. T. Cacioppo, and R. L. Rapson, Emotional Contagion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Barsade and Gibson, “Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations?”; and Bono and Ilies, “Charisma, Positive Emotions, and Mood Contagion.”

45. Jeff Bailey, “Outsize Personality Tries to Create a Regional Airline to Match,” The New York Times (January 19, 2007), p. C1.

46. Research by Noah Eisenkraft and Hillary Anger Elfenbein reported in Nicole Branan, “The ‘Me’ Effect,” Scientific American Mind (November–December 2010), pp. 14–15; Noah Eisenkraft and Hillary Anger Elfenbein, “The Way You Make Me Feel,” Psycholo- gical Science 21 (April 2010), pp. 505–510; Robert I. Sutton, “How Bad Apples Infect the Tree,” The New York Times (November 28, 2010), p. BU.8; and Roy Baumeister et al., “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” Review of General Psychology 5, no. 4 (2001), pp. 323–370.

47. Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee, “The Emotional Reality of Teams,” Journal of Organizational Excellence (Spring 2002), pp. 55–65.

48. P. J. Jordan, N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, and G. S. Hooper, “Workgroup Emotional Intelligence: Scale Development and Relationship to Team Process Effectiveness and Goal Focus,” Human Resource Management Review 12, no. 2 (Summer 2002), pp. 195–214.

49. See studies reported in Barsade and Gibson, “Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations?”; Bono and Ilies, “Charisma, Positive Emotions, and Mood Contagion; and “Why Mood Matters,” Management Today (November 1, 2008), p. 46.

50. Barbara L. Fredrickson, “What Good Are Positive Emotions?” Review of General Psychology 2, no. 3 (1998), pp. 300–319; Barsade and Gibson, “Why Does Affect Matter”; and “Why Mood Matters.”

51. Jerry Krueger and Emily Killham, “At Work, Feeling Good Matters,” Gallup Management Journal (December 8, 2005).

52. “Why Mood Matters.”

53. Diane Coutu, “Leadership Lessons from Abraham Lincoln,” Harvard Business Review (April 2009), pp. 43–47.

54. Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Mastery: Seek to Excel in Four Dimensions,” Leadership Excellence (June 2011), pp. 12–13; and Goleman, “Leadership that Gets Results.”

55. Dave Marcum, Steve Smith, and Mahan Khalsa, “The Marshmallow Conundrum,” Across the Board (March–April 2004), pp. 26–30.

56. Sue Shellenbarger, “Health & Fitness: How to Keep Your Cool in Angry Times,” The Wall Street Journal Asia (September 27, 2010), p. 11.

57. Alan Farnham, “Are You Smart Enough to Keep Your Job?” Fortune (January 15, 1996), pp. 34–47.

58. Peter J. Frost, “Handling the Hurt: A Critical Skill for Leaders,” Ivey Management Journal (January–February 2004).

59. Rolf W. Habbel, “The Human[e] Factor: Nurturing a Leadership Culture,” Strategy & Business 26 (First Quarter 2002), pp. 83–89; and Melvin Smith and Diana Bilimoria, “Heart of Leadership: Engage with Emotional Intelligence,” Leadership Excellence (March 2012), p. 5.

164

60. Jeremy W. Peters, “Time Inc. Chief Executive Jack Griffin Out,” The New York Times (February 17, 2011), http://mediadecoder .blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/time-inc-chief-executive-jack-griffin -out/ (accessed April 1, 2013).

61. Research study results reported in Goleman, “Leadership That Gets Results.”

62. Dov Seidman, “The New Way to Win Super Bowls: Leadership Lessons of the NFL’s Cutting Edge Coaches,” Time (February 1, 2013), http://business.time.com/2013/02/01/the-new-way-to-win -super-bowls-leadership-lessons-of-the-nfls-cutting-edge -coaches/ (accessed April 1, 2013).

63. Barsade and Gibson, “Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations?”; Frank Walter, Michael S. Cole, and Ronald H. Humphrey, “Emo- tional Intelligence: Sine Qua Non of Leadership or Folderol?” Academy of Management Perspectives (February 2011), pp. 45–58; and Kenneth M. Nowack, “Emotional Intelligence: Defining and Understanding the Fad,” T D (August 2012), pp. 60–63.

64. Xavier, “Are You at the Top of Your Game?”

65. This discussion is based in part on Kathleen D. Ryan and Daniel K. Oestreich, Driving Fear out of the Workplace: How to Overcome the Invisible Barriers to Quality, Productivity, and Innovation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991); and Scott A. Snook, “Love and Fear and the Modern Boss,” Harvard Business Review (January 2008), pp. 16–17.

66. S. Lyubomirsky, L. King, and E. Diener, “The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?” Psychological Bulletin 131, no. 6 (2005), pp. 803–855; R. Cropanzano and T. A. Wright, “When a ‘Happy’ Worker Is Really a ‘Productive’ Worker: A Review and Further Refinement of the Happy-Productive Worker Theory,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 53, no. 3 (2001), pp. 182–199; and Barsade and Gibson, “Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations?”

67. David E. Dorsey, “Escape from the Red Zone,” Fast Company (April/ May 1997), pp. 116–127.

68. Susan G. Hauser, “The Degeneration of Decorum,” Workforce Management (January 11, 2011), pp. 16–18, 20–21.

69. Tom Kelley and David Kelley, “Reclaim Your Creative Confidence,” Harvard Business Review (December 2012), pp. 115–117; and Frederic Lardinois, “Pulse News Reader Dips Its Toes into Social with New ‘Highlights’ Feature,” TechCrunch (February 12, 2013), http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/12/pulse-news-reader-dips-its -toes-into-social/ (accessed April 1, 2013).

70. Frederic Lardinois, “Pulse News Reader Dips Its Toes into Social with New ‘Highlights’ Feature,” TechCrunch (February 12, 2013), http:// techcrunch.com/2013/02/12/pulse-news-reader-dips-its-toes -into-social/ (accessed April 1, 2013).

71. This section is based on Ryan and Oestreich, Driving Fear out of the Workplace; and Therese R. Welter, “Reducing Employee Fear: Get Workers and Managers to Speak Their Minds,” Small Business Report (April 1991), pp. 15–18.

72. Ryan and Oestreich, Driving Fear out of the Workplace, p. 43.

73. Daniel Holden, “Team Development: A Search for Elegance,” Industrial Management (September–October 2007), pp. 20–25.

74. Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, p. 80.

75. Donald G. Zauderer, “Integrity: An Essential Executive Quality,” Business Forum (Fall 1992), pp. 12–16.

76. Hyler Bracey, Jack Rosenblum, Aubrey Sanford, and Roy Trueblood, Managing from the Heart (New York: Dell Publishing, 1993), p. 192.

77. Madan Birla with Cecilia Miller Marshall, Balanced Life and Leadership Excellence (Memphis, TN: The Balance Group, 1997), pp. 76–77.

78. Rodney Ferris, “How Organizational Love Can Improve Leader- ship,” Organizational Dynamics 16, no. 4 (Spring 1988), pp. 40–52.

79. Kristy J. O’Hara, “Role Player,” Smart Business Akron/Canton (March 2009), p. 14.

165

YOUR CHALLENGE After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Combine a rational approach to leadership with a concern for people and ethics.

• Understand how leaders set the ethical tone in organizations and recognize the distinction between ethical and unethical leadership.

• Recognize your own stage of moral development and ways to accelerate your moral maturation.

• Know and use mechanisms that enhance an ethical organizational culture.

• Apply the principles of stewardship and servant leadership.

• Recognize courage in others and unlock your own potential to live and act courageously.

CHAPTER 168

172

173

175

179

169

178

181

184

171

179

183

186

188

189

190

B y the time she was shot in the head in an assassination attempt by Taliban gunmen in October 2012, 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai had been a leader in the fight for girls’ education in Pakistan for more than three years. Yousafzai

began writing a blog under a pseudonym for the BBC at the age of 11, detailing her life under Taliban rule, their control of the Swat Valley, and her advocacy of education for girls. After the Pakistan military ousted the militants from her region, Yousafzai began speaking publicly. A New York Times documentary and interviews by both print and television media raised her profile further and put her in the direct aim of the Taliban. After life-saving surgeries in Pakistan following the shooting, Yousafzai was flown to Birmingham, England, where she underwent numerous more surgeries—and where, within six months, she returned to school. The Taliban has vowed that they will keep trying to kill Yousafzai, but the young leader remains committed. According to one of the doctors who treated her, “She’s not naïve at all about what happened to her and the situation in terms of her high profile. She’s incredibly determined to continue to speak for her cause.”1

Malala Yousafzai knew very early in life that being an influential leader means learning who you are and what you stand for, and then having the courage to act. Leaders demonstrate confidence and commitment in what they believe and what they do. A deep devotion to a cause or a purpose larger than one’s self sparks the courage to act, as it does for Malala Yousafzai, who said upon her return to school, “I want all girls in the world to have this basic opportunity.”2

167

In addition, Malala Yousafzai’s story illustrates that real leadership has less to do with making use of other people than with serving other people. Placing others ahead of oneself is a key to successful leadership, whether in social activism, politics, war, education, sports, social services, or business.

This chapter explores ideas related to courage and moral leadership. In the previous chapter, we discussed mind and emotion, two of the three elements that come together for successful leadership. This chapter focuses on the third element, spirit—on the ability to look within, to contemplate the human condition, to think about what is right and wrong, to see what really matters in the world, and to have the courage to stand up for what is worthy and right. We begin by looking at the situation in which most organizations currently operate, the dilemma leaders face in the modern world, and the importance of leaders setting an ethical tone within the organization. Next we explore how leaders can act in a moral way, examine a model of personal moral development, and look at the importance of stewardship and servant leadership. The final sections of the chapter explore what courage means and how leaders develop the courage for moral leadership to flourish.

The names of once-revered corporations such as AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Countrywide have become synonymous with greed, deceit, arrogance, or lack of moral conscience. Although the high-profile stories of ethical misconduct in organizations have slowed a bit, there are plenty of leaders still on the hot seat because of immoral or unethical behavior: Brian Dunn of Best Buy and Mark Hurd of Hewlett-Packard both resigned under pressure due to inappropriate relationships with female employees. Scott Thompson resigned as CEO of Yahoo after only four months on the job because reports revealed he had inaccurately claimed on his resume that he had a degree in computer science.3 And at the nonprofit Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Brooklyn, an inves- tigation revealed a pattern of insider dealing that lavishly benefitted top managers, board members, and local politicians while damaging the organization to the point that it might be closed, further limiting health care options for the poor.4

Leaders face many pressures that challenge their ability to do the right thing. The most dangerous obstacles for leaders are personal weakness and self-interest rather than full-scale corruption.5 Pressures to cut costs, increase profits, meet the demands of vendors or business partners, and look successful can all contribute to ethical lapses. For example, during the recent housing and financial crisis, leaders at Standard & Poor’s, the ratings agency, ignored ethical danger signals and chose to put short-term interests ahead of the truth in order to produce the ratings that were desired by banks putting together mortgage deals. A civil suit filed by the U.S. Justice Department alleges that S&P leaders knowingly issued unwarranted high ratings to maintain business.6 Their actions and those of leaders in many other companies con- tributed to the collapse of the housing market and a worldwide financial crisis.

Another challenge in today’s environment is an overemphasis on pleasing shareholders, which may cause some managers to behave unethically toward customers, employees, and the broader society.7 Managers are under enormous pressure to meet short-term earnings goals, and some even use accounting gimmicks

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can put ethical

values into action and set the

example you want followers to

live by. You can resist pressures

to act unethically just to avoid

criticism or achieve short-term

gains.

168

or other techniques to show returns that meet market expectations rather than ones that reflect true performance.8 All leaders want their organizations to appear successful, and they can sometimes do the wrong thing just so they will look good to others. The question for leaders is whether they can summon the fortitude to do the right thing despite outside pressures. “Life is lived on a slippery slope,” says Harvard Business School’s Richard Tedlow. “It takes a person of character to know what lines you don’t cross.”9

Top leaders in particular are facing closer scrutiny because what goes on at the top sets the standard for the rest of the organization. In a study of Fortune 100 compa- nies, fully 40 percent were found to have been engaged in activities that could be considered unethical.10 Moreover, researchers concluded that the misdeeds in many cases could be traced to the failure of top executives to enforce and live up to high ethical standards.

Leaders carry a tremendous responsibility for setting the ethical climate and acting as positive role models for others.11 Leaders signal what matters through their behavior, and when leaders operate from principles of selfishness and greed, many employees come to see that type of behavior as okay. At the now-defunct Bear Stearns, for example, senior executives were openly arrogant and ambitious for personal successes, and they built a “sharp-elbowed, opportunistic culture” in which rules and basic standards of fairness, honesty, and honor could be bent for the sake of achieving personal gain.12 Contrast the Bear Stearns approach to the culture Denise Ramos is building at ITT.

Denise Ramos and Jennifer Schiavone, ITT ITT, a diversified global industrial corporation, was founded in the early twentieth century, but

when the corporation spun off its defense and water businesses in October 2011, it essentially

became a “100-year-old startup,” as chief communications officer Jennifer Schiavone puts it.

Many companies would start building the brand by taking an external approach, but Schiavone’s-

team and new CEO Denise Ramos took the opposite approach—building the company’s reputa-

tion from the inside out with a culture of trust, engagement, and integrity.

Ramos went on a global listening tour, meeting with employees at all levels, some-

times individually or in small teams, other times in large town-hall-style gatherings. The

result of all this listening was the “ITT Way,” a code that encapsulates the core values of

respect, responsibility, and integrity and defines how the company uses them to meet the

needs of employees, customers, business partners, shareholders, and the communities

where ITT operates.

Putting values on paper is easy. Acting on them is what counts. Ramos works hard to

see that managers at all levels “walk the talk.” She tells a story about the manager at one

unit in Latin America who faced a difficult choice: he could pay a bribe and make a sale

that would enable him to meet his financial goals for the quarter, or he could refuse to

pay, lose the sale, and miss his targets. He chose the latter option, and top executives

went out of their way to congratulate him on missing his numbers for the quarter. Achieving

sales and earnings targets is good, says Ramos, but when people do the right thing, “that’s

the time to celebrate.” 13

169

Denise Ramos is building a culture of integrity and ethical leadership at ITT by modeling ethical values and rewarding other managers for doing the same. Exhibit 6.1 compares ethical and unethical leadership. The behaviors listed in column 1 contribute to an organizational climate of trust, fairness, and doing the right thing, such as the one Denise Ramos is building at ITT. Column 2 lists the opposite behaviors, which contrib- ute to a climate ripe for ethical and legal abuses, such as at Bear Stearns.14

Ethical leaders aren’t preoccupied with their own importance. They keep the focus on employees, customers, and the greater good rather than taking every opportunity to satisfy their self-interest, feed their greed, or nourish their egos. Unethical leaders typically pay more attention to gaining benefits for themselves rather than for the company or the larger society. For example, an investigation of New York State’s pension fund for public workers found that former New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi and other political leaders and advisors accepted millions in sham consulting fees, travel expenses, campaign contributions, and other favors in exchange for giving specified investment firms parts of the fund to manage, enabling the firms to earn hefty management fees. Hevesi and advisor Hank Morris both pleaded guilty to felony corruption charges. Hevesi was paroled in February 2013 after serving 20 months in prison.15

Also shown in Exhibit 6.1, ethical leaders are honest with employees, partners, customers, vendors, and shareholders. They strive for fairness and take care to honor their agreements or commitments to others. Unethical leaders, on the other hand, often practice deception. In a USA Today survey some years ago, 82 percent of CEOs said they lied about their golf scores. Sure, it’s a small thing, but little by little, dishonesty can become a way of life and business.16

Ethical leaders tend to share the credit for successes and accept the blame when things go wrong, whereas unethical leaders often take credit for followers’ accom- plishments and diminish the dignity of others by treating people with discourtesy and disrespect. Ethical leaders help followers develop their potential and have a role in decision making, whereas unethical leaders often see followers as a means to an end.

Finally, one of the primary ways leaders contribute to an ethical organization is by speaking up against acts they believe are wrong. If a leader knows someone is being treated unfairly by a colleague and does nothing, the leader is setting a

NEW LEADER

Go to Leader’s Self-Insight 6.1

and complete the questions to

learn whether your behavior

and decisions suggest that you

will be an ethical leader.

Possesses humility Is arrogant and self-serving

Maintains concern for the greater good Excessively promotes self-interest

Is honest and straightforward Practices deception

Fulfills commitments Breaches agreements

Strives for fairness Deals unfairly

Takes responsibility Shifts blame to others

Shows respect for each individual Diminishes others’ dignity

Encourages and develops others Neglects follower development

Serves others Withholds help and support

Shows courage to stand up for what is right Lacks courage to confront unjust acts

Source: Based on Donald G. Zauderer, “Integrity: An Essential Executive Quality,” Business Forum (Fall 1992), pp. 12–16.

170

precedent for others to behave unfairly as well. Peers and subordinates with lax ethical standards feel free to act as they choose. Consider what happened at Pennsylvania State University. In 2001, Mike McQueary, at the time a graduate assistant in the football program, reported to the head football coach Joe Paterno that he saw defensive coordi- nator Jerry Sandusky possibly sexually abusing a young boy in the locker room. Athletic director Tim Curley and at least two top administrators also soon learned of the inci- dent. But no one took the next step to stop the immoral (and illegal) behavior, and Sandusky went on to molest more boys before one of his victims brought the abuse to light. More than 10 years after McQueary’s initial report, Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse. The courts and the public were astonished to learn how many people apparently knew about Sandusky’s behavior and did nothing beyond talking with Sandusky and urging him to get professional help.17

How can leaders turn a blind eye to such behavior? The fact is that most man- agers have a natural inclination to protect the organization. In addition, leaders have to fight against a tendency for people “to see what we want to see, not see what we don’t want to see, and to hope a problem will go away on its own,” a tendency that causes leaders such as those at Penn State to make decisions “that later come to be seen by others as ethically indefensible.”18 Penn State leaders aren’t alone in this

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Think about how you typically behave and make decisions and respond honestly to the statements below. Answer as you actually behave, not as you would want to behave.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I can clearly state the principles and values that guide my actions.

2. I promptly own up to my own mistakes and failures.

3. I am able to quickly “forgive and forget” when someone has made a serious mistake that affects me.

4. When making a difficult decision, I take the time to assess my principles and values.

5. I have a reputation among my friends and co-workers for keeping my word.

6. I intentionally reflect on my mistakes to improve my performance.

7. When someone asks me to keep a confidence, I always do so completely.

8. When things go wrong, I seldom blame others or circumstances.

9. I am able to forgive myself soon after a serious mistake.

10. My coworkers would say that my behavior is very consistent with my values.

Scoring and Interpretation

Give yourself 1 point for each Mostly True answer you checked above. Total Score . Your score for the ethical maturity scale suggests whether you are on track to become an ethical leader as described in Exhibit 6.1. A high score of 8Ģ10 is suggestive of someone who is more concerned with values and other people than with self-interest. A score of 0Ģ3 would be considered low, and a score of 4Ģ7 is the middle ground. Your score also pro- vides a clue about your level of moral development shown in Exhibit 6.4. The postconventional level of development means that you consider principles and values, take per- sonal responsibility, and do not blame others. A high score suggests that you have a highly developed moral sense. A lower score suggests you may be at the conven- tional or even pre-conventional level. Reflect on what your score means to you.

Source: Based on and adapted from Doug Lennick and Fred Kiel,

(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Cordon School Publications, 2005), pp. 251–263.

171

tendency to protect the organization even at the risk of allowing unethical or illegal behavior to continue. For many reasons, it is often hard to stand up for what is right, but this is a primary way in which leaders create an environment of integrity.

At Penn State, numerous leaders were guilty of putting winning football games and protecting the school’s reputation ahead of morality. At other organizations, leaders may put meeting economic goals ahead of doing the right thing. Companies that get into ethical trouble typically have top leaders who make quarterly earnings and the share price their primary purpose of business and the most important measure of individual and organizational success.19 When leaders forget that business is about values and not just economic performance, organizations and the broader society are hurt in the process.

Moral leadership doesn’t mean ignoring profit and loss, share price, production costs, and other hard, measurable facts, but it does require recognizing and adhering to ethical values and acknowledging the importance of human meaning, quality, and higher purpose.20 Henry Ford’s century-old comment seems tailor-made for today’s poor ethical climate: “For a long time people believed that the only purpose of industry was to make a profit. They are wrong. Its purpose is to serve the general welfare.”21

Despite the corporate realities of greed, competition, and the drive to achieve goals and profits, leaders can act based on moral values and encourage others to develop and use moral values and adhere to ethical standards of conduct in the workplace. The single most important factor in ethical decision making in organizations is whether leaders show a commitment to ethics in their talk and especially their behavior.22 Employees learn about the values that are important in the organization by watching leaders.

Exhibit 6.2 lists some specific ways leaders act to build an environment that allows and encourages people to behave ethically. Leaders create organizational sys- tems and policies that support ethical behavior, such as creating open-door policies that encourage people to talk about anything without fear, establishing clear ethics codes, rewarding ethical conduct, and showing zero tolerance for violations. Many companies have hired high-level chief compliance officers to police managers and

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can drive fear

out of the organization so that

followers feel comfortable re-

porting problems or ethical

abuses. You can establish clear

ethics policies, reward ethical

conduct, and show zero toler-

ance for violations.

1. Articulate and uphold high moral principles.

2. Focus on what is right for the organization as well as all the people involved.

3. Set the example you want others to live by.

4. Be honest with yourself and others.

5. Drive out fear and eliminate undiscussables.

6. Establish and communicate ethics policies.

7. Develop a backbone—show zero tolerance for ethical violations.

8. Reward ethical conduct.

9. Treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and respect, from the lowest to the highest level of the

organization.

10. Do the right thing in both your private and professional life—even if no one is looking.

Sources: Based on Linda Klebe Treviño, Laura Pincus Hartman, and Michael Brown, “Moral Person and Moral Manager: How Executives

Develop a Reputation for Ethical Leadership,” California Management Review 42, no. 4 (Summer 2000), pp. 128–142; Christopher Hoenig,

“Brave Hearts,” CIO (November 1, 2000), pp. 72–74; and Patricia Wallington, “Honestly?!” CIO (March 15, 2003), pp. 41–42.

172

employees.23 Most companies have established codes of ethics to guide employee behavior or lists of core values that employees are expected to honor. Exhibit 6.3 lists the core values for More Than Wheels, which has a mission “To help strug- gling individuals & families break the cycle of poor financial decision making by using the car buying process to catalyze lasting change, financial stability and control.”24 Most importantly, leaders articulate and uphold high ethical standards, and they behave morally even if they think no one is looking. If leaders cut corners or bend the rules when they think they won’t get caught, they and their organiza- tions will ultimately suffer the consequences.

There is some evidence that doing right by employees, customers, and the commu- nity, as well as by shareholders, is good business. For example, a recent study of the top 100 global companies that have made a commitment to environmental sustainability found they had significantly higher sales growth, return on assets, profits, and cash flow from operations in at least some areas of business.25 Another review of the finan- cial performance of large U.S. corporations considered “best corporate citizens” found that they enjoy both superior reputations and superior financial performance.26 Simi- larly, Governance Metrics International, an independent corporate governance ratings agency in New York, reports that the stocks of companies run on more selfless princi- ples perform better than those run in a self-serving manner.27

Leadership is not merely a set of practices with no association with right or wrong. All leadership practices can be used for good or evil and thus have a moral dimen- sion. Leaders choose whether to act from selfishness and greed to diminish others

At More Than Wheels our Core Values guide us in achieving our mission by working with clients and

partners towards the goal of building lasting financial outcomes for our clients.

Trust

We respect and believe in one another and in our customers.

We speak the truth to each other, even when it’s hard.

We value one another’s opinions.

Nonjudgmental

We deal with current reality, without judgment.

We are pragmatic and forward-looking.

Accountability

We live up to our agreements.

We are relentless about reaching our goals and creatively solving problems.

We do the very best we can for our clients.

Teamwork

We value collaboration.

Our success relies on teamwork.

Learning

We learn from one another and from our successes and failures.

We strive for continual and meaningful improvement in our work.

Source: More Than Wheels Mission and Core Values, http://www.morethanwheels.org/mission (Retrieved May 18, 2013).

173

or to behave in ways that serve others and motivate people to expand their poten- tial as employees and as human beings.28 Moral leadership is about distinguishing right from wrong and doing right, seeking the just, the honest, the good, and the right conduct in achieving goals and fulfilling purpose. Leaders have great influence over others, and moral leadership uplifts people and enhances the lives of others. Immoral leadership takes away from others in order to enhance oneself.29

Leaders most often know what is right; the question becomes how they choose to act on it and what internal strengths and external policies and processes are in place to enable them to follow through on doing the right thing.30 One internal characteristic that influences a leader’s capacity to make moral choices is the indivi- dual’s level of moral development.31 Exhibit 6.4 shows a simplified illustration of one model of personal moral development.

At the preconventional level, individuals are egocentric and concerned with receiving external rewards and avoiding punishments. They obey authority and fol- low rules to avoid detrimental personal consequences or satisfy immediate self- interests. The basic orientation toward the world is one of taking what one can get. Someone with this orientation in a leadership position would tend to be auto- cratic toward others and use the position for personal advancement.

At level two, the conventional level, people learn to conform to the expectations of good behavior as defined by colleagues, family, friends, and society. People at this level follow the rules, norms, and values in the corporate culture. If the rules are to not steal, cheat, make false promises, or violate regulatory laws, a person at this level will attempt to obey. People at the conventional level adhere to the norms of the larger social system. If the social system says it is okay to inflate bills to the government or make achieving the bottom line more important than honesty and integrity, they will usually go along with that norm also. Consider the recent cheating scandals that have rocked several respected schools, including the Air Force Academy, Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan, and Harvard University. Interviews with students and former students at Stuyvesant indicate that many of them were simply going along with the

Sources: Based on Lawrence Kohlberg, “Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach,” in Moral

Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues, ed. Thomas Likona (Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976),

pp. 31–53; and Jill W. Graham, “Leadership, Moral Development, and Citizenship Behavior,” Business Ethics Quarterly 5, no. 1

(January 1995), pp. 43–54.

Moral leadership

distinguishing right from wrong and doing right;

seeking the just, honest, and

good in the practice of

leadership

Preconventional level

the level of personal moral development in which indi-

viduals are egocentric and

concerned with receiving

external rewards and avoid- ing punishments

Conventional level

the level of personal moral

development in which peo-

ple learn to conform to the expectations of good be-

havior as defined by collea-

gues, family, friends, and

society

174

system, a culture in which students band together and cheat in a common understanding that it is a “necessary evil” to reach their goals. Many classes have private Facebook groups, for instance, where students can post full sets of answers to tests—one student said it is expected that people will help each other out.32 Howard Gardner, a professor at the Graduate School of Education, says “the ethical muscles [of students] have atrophied” because of a broader societal culture that exalts success at any cost—going along with the system.33

At the postconventional level, sometimes called the principled level, leaders are guided by an internalized set of principles universally recognized as just and right. Peo- ple at this level may even disobey rules or laws that violate these principles. These inter- nalized values become more important than the expectations of other people in the organization or community. Would students at a postconventional level of moral devel- opment cheat on tests as those mentioned above did, since others were cheating to get ahead? A recent study suggests they would not. In a stock trading simulation, research- ers gave randomly selected business school students “insider information” on actual stock earnings, allowing them to accept or reject the information. Those students who rejected the insider information scored higher on moral development, in the postcon- ventional range, whereas those who accepted the information scored at lower levels.34

Most adults operate at level two of moral development, and some have not advanced beyond level one. Only about 20 percent of American adults reach the third, postconventional level of moral development, although most of us have the capacity to do so.35 A leader at this level is visionary, empowering, and committed to serving others and a higher cause. These leaders can impartially apply universal standards to resolve moral conflicts and balance self-interest with a concern for others and for the common good. Research has consistently found a direct relationship between higher levels of moral development and more ethical behavior on the job, including less cheating, a tendency toward helpfulness to others, and the reporting of unethical or illegal acts, known as whistleblowing.36

What is a leader’s moral responsibility toward followers? Is it to limit and control them to meet the needs of the organization? Is it to pay them a fair wage? Or is it to enable them to grow and create and expand themselves as human beings?

Much of the thinking about leadership today implies that moral leadership involves turning followers into leaders, thereby developing their potential rather than using a leadership position to control or limit people. The ultimate expression of this leadership approach is called servant leadership, which can best be understood by comparing it to other approaches. Exhibit 6.5 illustrates a continuum of leadership thinking and prac- tice. Traditional organizations were based on the idea that the leader is in charge of sub- ordinates and the success of the organization depends on leader control over followers. In the first stage, subordinates are passive—not expected to think for themselves but sim- ply to do as they are told. Stage two in the continuum involves subordinates more actively in their own work. Stage three is stewardship, which represents a significant shift in mindset by moving responsibility and authority from leaders to followers.

Servant leadership represents a stage beyond stewardship, where leaders give up control and make a choice to serve employees. Along the continuum, the focus of leadership shifts from leader to followers. In the following sections, we discuss each stage of this leadership continuum in more detail.

175

Postconventional level

the level of personal moral

development in which

leaders are guided by an internalized set of principles

universally recognized

as right

The traditional understanding of leadership is that leaders are good managers who direct and control their people. Followers are obedient subordinates who follow orders. In Chapter 2, we discussed the autocratic leader, who makes the decisions and announces them to subordinates. Power, purpose, and privilege reside with those at the top of the organization. At this stage, leaders set the strategy and goals, as well as the methods and rewards for attaining them. Organizational stability and efficiency are paramount, and followers are routinized and controlled along with machines and raw materials. Subordinates are given no voice in creating meaning and purpose for their work and no discretion as to how they perform their jobs. This leadership mindset emphasizes tight top-down control, employee standardiza- tion and specialization, and management by impersonal measurement and analysis.

Since the 1980s, many organizations have made efforts to actively involve employ- ees. Leaders have increased employee participation through employee suggestion programs, participation groups, and quality circles. Teamwork has become an important part of how work is done in most organizations. Studies indicate that around 70 percent of the largest U.S. corporations have adopted some kind of employee participation program or shifted to a team design. However, many of these programs do not redistribute power and authority to lower-level workers.37

The mindset is still paternalistic in that leaders determine purpose and goals, make final decisions, and decide rewards. Employees are expected to make suggestions for quality improvements, act as team players, and take greater responsibility for their own jobs, but they are not allowed to be true partners in the enterprise.38

176

Stewardship is a pivotal shift in leadership thinking. Stewardship means that leaders are guardians and curators of organizational resources and values and they place the long-term interests of the organization first.39 As stewards, leaders empower fol- lowers to make decisions and have control over how they do their own jobs. Four principles provide the framework for stewardship.

1. Adopt a partnership mindset. Partnership can happen only when power and control shift away from formal leaders to core employees. As partners, leaders and followers are totally honest with one another, jointly responsible for defining vision and pur- pose, and mutually accountable for outcomes that benefit the whole.

2. Give decision-making power and the authority to act to those closest to the work and the customer. This means reintegrating the “managing” and the “doing” of work, so that everyone becomes a leader and is also doing some of the core work of the organization. Nobody gets paid simply to plan and manage the work of others.

3. Tie rewards to contributions rather than formal positions. With stewardship, everyone’s fortunes are connected to the success of the enterprise. Stewardship involves redistributing wealth by designing compensation so that people can make significant gains when they make exceptional contributions.

4. Expect core work teams to build the organization. Teams of employees define goals, maintain controls, create a nurturing environment, and organize and reorganize themselves to respond to a changing environment and marketplace.

Stewardship leaders guide the organization without dominating it and facilitate followers without controlling them. At Julia’s House, a children’s hospice in Dorset (United Kingdom) that has won numerous awards including The Sunday Times Best Companies award, the CEO and all department heads sit in an open-plan office with other staff to signal a partnership approach. The organization chart was redesigned to read left to right rather than the usual vertical hierarchy.40 Stew- ardship allows for a relationship between leaders and followers in which each makes significant, self-responsible contributions to organizational success. In addi- tion, it gives followers a chance to use their minds, bodies, and spirits on the job, thereby allowing them to be whole human beings.

Servant leadership takes stewardship assumptions about leaders and followers one step further. Robert Wood Johnson, who built Johnson & Johnson from a small private company into one of the world’s greatest corporations, summarized his ideas about management in the expression “to serve.” In a statement called “Our Management Philosophy,” Johnson went on to say, “It is the duty of the leader to be a servant to those responsible to him.”41 Johnson died decades ago, but his beliefs about the moral responsibility of a leader are as fresh and compelling (and perhaps as controversial) today as they were when he wrote them.

Servant leadership is leadership upside down. Servant leaders transcend self- interest to serve the needs of others, help others grow and develop, and provide opportunity for others to gain materially and emotionally. Fred Keller has built a $250 million plastics manufacturing company, Cascade Engineering, by continuously asking one question: What good can we do? Keller started the business 40 years ago with six employees. Today, it has 1,000 employees in 15 business divisions. Keller

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can apply the

principles of stewardship and

treat followers as true partners

by sharing power and author-

ity for setting goals, making

decisions, and maintaining

control over their own work

and performance.

177

Stewardship

a belief that leaders are

deeply accountable to others as well as to the

organization, without trying

to control others, define

meaning and purpose for others, or take care of others

Servant leadership

leadership in which the

leader transcends self-

interest to serve the needs of

others, help others grow, and provide opportunities

for others to gain materially

and emotionally

has made serving others a cornerstone of the business. The company offers jobs to welfare recipients, and Keller donates large amounts to various philanthropic causes, both as an individual and through Cascade.42

There has been an explosion of interest in the concept of leader as servant in recent years.43 Servant leadership was first described by Robert Greenleaf in his book, Servant Leadership.44 There are four basic precepts in Greenleaf’s model:45

1. Put service before self-interest. In this view, the organization exists as much to provide meaningful work to the person as the person exists to perform work for the organization.

2. Listen first to affirm others. One of the servant leader’s greatest gifts to others is listening authentically.

3. Inspire trust by being trustworthy. Servant leaders build trust by doing what they say they will do, being honest with others, and focusing on the well-being of others.

4. Nourish others and help them become whole. Servant leaders care about fol- lowers and believe in the unique potential of each person to have a positive impact on the world.

The servant leader’s top priority is service to employees, customers, share- holders, and the general public. Leadership flows out of the act of service because it enables other people to grow and become all they are capable of being.46 For organizational psychologist Adam Grant, serving others provides powerful motiva- tion and creative energy, as described in the following example.

Adam Grant, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania Adam Grant has been studying the power of service to others since he was an undergraduate

student at Harvard. He took a job selling advertisements for a travel guide series but didn’t do

so well. Only when he met another student and learned that her job at the same company

was essential for paying her way through college did he find purpose and meaning in his

work. He eventually sold the largest advertising package in company history. “When I was

representing the interests of students, I was willing to fight to protect them,” he says.

Grant went on to earn a graduate degree in organizational psychology and now teaches

at the Wharton School, where he is the youngest-tenured and highest-rated professor. Grant

goes far beyond the typical professor in helping students. He writes lengthy letters of recom-

mendation for students or former students approximately 100 times a year. He provides intro-

ductions for students to influential people he knows. He answers hundreds of e-mail messages

a day from students, colleagues, and even people he doesn’t know, providing information or

assistance. Helpfulness is the watchword Grant lives by. Moreover, he argues that the greatest

untapped source of motivation and productivity in organizations is service to others.

Grant has hard data from several experiments to back up his claim that focusing on the

contributions we make to improve other people’s lives makes us more motivated and

productive. For example, call center workers seeking donations to fund college scholarships

increased their effort and brought in 171Ĝpercent more revenue after hearing a student

talk about how his life had been changed by a scholarship—even though the workers

themselves didn’t think they had been influenced by the student’s brief talk. 47

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can put the

needs, interests, and goals of

others above your own and use

your personal gifts to help

others achieve their potential.

Complete the questionnaire in

Leader’s Self-Insight 6.2 to

evaluate your leadership ap-

proach along the dimensions of

authoritarian leadership, par-

ticipative leadership, steward-

ship, and servant leadership.

178

Grant’s insights suggest that servant leadership can mean something as simple as encouraging others in their personal development and helping them understand the larger purpose in their work. ServiceMaster, which cleans and maintains hospitals, schools, and other buildings, provides a good example. Leaders care how employees feel about themselves, about their work, and about the people they interact with. They instill a sense of dignity, responsibility, and meaningfulness in menial tasks like scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets. One employee who works in a hospital, for example, says she sees herself as part of a team that helps sick people get well.48

Leaders sometimes have to reach deep within themselves to find the courage and strength of character to serve others, resist temptation, behave morally, or stand up for ethical principles when others may ridicule them or when they may suffer financially or emotionally for their actions.

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Think about situations in which you were in a formal or informal leadership role in a group or organization. Imagine using your personal approach as a leader. To what extent does each of the following statements characterize your leadership? Please answer whether each item below is Mostly False or Mostly True for you.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. My actions meet the needs of others before my own.

2. I explicitly enable others to feel ownership for their work.

3. I like to consult with people when making a decision.

4. I’m a perfectionist. 5. I like to be of service to others. 6. I try to learn the needs and per-

spectives of others. 7. I consciously utilize the skills and

talents of others. 8. I am assertive about the right way

to do things. 9. I give away credit and recognition

to others. 10. I believe that others have good

intentions. 11. I quickly inform others of devel-

opments that affect their work. 12. I tend to automatically take charge. 13. I encourage the growth of others,

expecting nothing in return.

14. I value cooperation over competi- tion as a way to energize people.

15. I involve others in planning and goal setting.

16. I put people under pressure when needed.

Scoring and Interpretation

There are four subscale scores that represent four dimensions of leadership—authoritarian, participative, stewardship, and servant. For each dimension below, give yourself one point for each Mostly True response to the items indicated.

My leadership scores are:

Authoritarian, items 4, 8, 12, 16: Participative, items 2, 6, 10, 14: Stewardship, items 3, 7, 11, 15: Servant, items 1, 5, 9, 13:

These scores represent the four aspects of leadership called authoritarian, participative, stewardship, and servant as described in the text and illustrated in Exhibit 6.5. A score of 3Ģ4 on any of these dimensions would be considered above average, and a score of 0–1 is below average.

Compare your four scores to each other to understand your approach to stewardship and servant leadership. On which of the four dimensions would you like to have the highest score? The lowest? Study the specific questions on which you scored Mostly True or Mostly False to analyze your pattern of strengths and weaknesses. It is not possible to display all four dimensions of leadership simultaneously, so you should think about the dimension you want to emphasize to reflect your leader ideal.

179

Some would say that without courage, leadership cannot exist.49 However, for many leaders, particularly those working in large organizations, the impor- tance of courage is easily obscured—the main thing is to get along, fit in, and do whatever brings promotions and pay raises. In a world of stability and abun- dance, leaders can often forget even the meaning of courage, so how can they know where to find it when they need it? In the following sections, we examine the nature of leadership courage and discuss some ways courage is expressed in organizations. The final section of the chapter explores the sources of leadership courage.

Many people know intuitively that courage can carry you through deprivation, ridi- cule, and rejection and enable you to achieve something about which you care deeply. Courage is both a moral and a practical matter for leaders. A lack of courage is what allows greed and self-interest to overcome concern for the common good.50

Courage is the mental and moral strength to engage in, persevere through, and with- stand danger, difficulty, or fear. Courage doesn’t mean the absence of doubt, confu- sion, or fear, but the ability to act in spite of them when it is necessary for the greater good. In fact, if there were no fear or doubt, courage would not be needed.

The courage to take risks has always been important for living a full, rewarding life, as discussed in the Consider This box. Yet the courage to resist jumping on the bandwagon and taking unnecessary or unethical risks is equally important. For today’s organizations, things are constantly changing, and leaders thrive by solving problems through trial and error. They create the future by moving forward in the face of uncertainty, by taking chances, by acting with courage.51

Consider

To … is to risk appearing the fool. To … is to risk appearing sentimental. To … is to risk involvement. To … is to risk exposing your true self. To … is to risk rejection. To … is to risk not being loved in return. To … is to risk dying. To … is to risk despair. To … is to risk failure. But risks must be taken, because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing. Those who

risk nothing do nothing and have nothing. They may avoid suffering and sorrow, but they cannot learn, feel, change, grow, or love. Chained by their certitude, they are slaves; they have forfeited their freedom. Only one who risks is free.

Peter Voyer, senior artillery officer in

the Canadian Army

Courage

the mental and moral

strength to engage in,

persevere through, and withstand danger, difficulty,

or fear

180

People experience all kinds of fears, including fear of death, mistakes, failure, embarrassment, change, loss of control, loneliness, pain, uncertainty, abuse, rejection, success, and public speaking. It is natural and right for people to feel fear when real risk is involved, whether the risk is losing your life, losing your job, losing a loved one, or losing your reputation.

However, many times it isn’t fear as an actual threat that holds people back, but rather F.E.A.R., which stands for False Evidence Appearing Real. This kind of “fear” arises not from a true threat but from our own thoughts. This type of fear might be better termed anxiety, and this is what writer Seth Godin had to say about it: “Anxiety is nothing but repeatedly re-experiencing failure in advance. What a waste.”52 This reflects that many fears are learned and prevent people from doing what they want. Adam Grant, the Wharton professor profiled earlier in this chap- ter, for example, had a phobia about speaking in public, so he forced himself as a graduate student to lecture as much as possible and take advantage of every oppor- tunity to speak publicly so he could learn to step through the fear (really F.E.A.R.) that was holding him back from achieving his goals.53 True leaders step through these learned fears to accept responsibility, take risks, make changes, speak their minds, and fight for what they believe.

Leaders make a real difference in the world when they are willing to step up and take personal responsibility. Some people just let life happen to them; leaders make things happen. Courageous leaders create opportu- nities to make a difference in their organizations and communities. One example is Malala Yousafzai, the young girl shot by the Taliban who was described in the chap- ter opening example. A business example is John W. Rowe, former chairman and CEO of Aetna. When Rowe, a gerontologist and professor of medicine, was hired in 2000, Aetna was in shambles. The investment community viewed Rowe’s appoint- ment with skepticism. One analyst even told Rowe he expected the company’s perfor- mance to decline with him in charge. Rowe didn’t let that bother him; he simply accepted responsibility for fixing what was wrong and redefined the mission and core values to focus on quality care, which he made the guiding principle for all com- pany decisions. By the time Rowe retired in 2006, Aetna had gone from last place to first in trustworthiness and went from losing $1 million to making $5 million a day.54

Leadership courage means going against the grain, breaking traditions, reducing boundaries, and initiating change. Leaders are will- ing to take risks for a larger, ethical purpose, and they encourage others to do so.

Going against the status quo can be difficult. Consider the case of Paula Reid, who went against the “boys will be boys” status quo at the U.S. Secret Service in breaking open the Cartagena prostitution scandal.

Paula Reid, U.S. Secret Service Prostitution is legal in Cartagena, Colombia, but when a U.S. Secret Service agent allegedly

refused to pay, it set off a scandal that got several agents fired and tarnished the agency’s

reputation. Paula Reid, the new supervising manager for the Miami office of the U.S. Secret

Service, a prestigious division that oversees the South American region, acted swiftly when

To see if you are

dealing with

false evidence appearing real, log in to CengageNOW

to complete the interactive

questionnaire.

181

she received a report of a disturbance at the hotel where agents preparing for President

Barack Obama’s visit to Cartagena were staying. Reid didn’t particularly care whether prosti-

tution was legal or illegal. The bottom line for her was that visits to strip clubs, heavy drink-

ing, and hiring prostitutes are not acceptable ethical behaviors for Secret Service agents

charged with protecting the president of the United States.

Based on information from the hotel manager, Reid swiftly rounded up a dozen

agents, ordered them out of the country, and notified her superiors that she had found evi-

dence of “egregious misconduct.” The resulting scandal threw the Secret Service into tur-

moil and put Director Mark Sullivan and other top leaders on the hot seat. Yet, for Reid,

the “boys will be boys” mentality is not acceptable in today’s world. “If every boss was

Paula Reid,” said a former agent, “the Secret Service would never have a problem. It would

be a lot more boring, but never a problem.” 55

The U.S. Secret Service has apparently tolerated moral lapses in the behavior of agents over the years, but Paula Reid believed that had to change. She acted in spite of a potential internal backlash because she believed the actions of the agents both hurt the agency’s reputation and damaged its ability to fulfill its protective and investigative missions.

Most leaders initiating change find some cooperation and support, but they also encounter resistance, rejection, loneliness, and even ridicule. It’s often easier to stay with what is familiar, even if it will lead to certain failure, than to initiate bold change.

To take a chance and improve things means leaders have to push beyond their comfort zone. When people go beyond the comfort zone, they encounter an internal “wall of fear.” A social experiment from 30 years ago illustrates the wall of fear that rises when people push beyond their comfort zone. To explore the web of unwritten rules that gov- ern people’s behavior on New York City subways, Dr. Stanley Milgram asked his first-year graduate students to board a crowded train and ask someone for a seat. Milgram’s focus of interest soon shifted to the students themselves, as the seemingly simple assignment proved to be extremely difficult, even trau- matic. Most students found it decidedly uncomfortable to bluntly ask someone for a seat. One now says of the experiment: “I was afraid I was going to throw up.”56 People may encounter the internal wall of fear when about to ask some- one for a date, confront the boss, break off a relationship, launch an expensive project, or change careers. Facing the internal wall of fear is when courage is needed most.

Leaders have to speak out to influence others. However, the desire to please others—especially the boss—can sometimes block the truth. Everyone wants approval, so it is difficult to say things when you think others will disagree or disapprove. Author and scholar Jerry Harvey tells a story of how members of his extended family in Texas decided to drive 40 miles to Abilene for dinner on a hot day when the car air conditioning did not work. They were all miserable. Talking about it afterward, each person admitted they had not wanted to go but went along to please the others. The Abilene Paradox is the name Harvey uses to describe the tendency of people to not voice their

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can develop

the backbone to accept per-

sonal responsibility for achiev-

ing desired outcomes, going

against the status quo, and

standing up for what you be-

lieve. You can learn to push

beyond your comfort zone and

break through the fear that

limits you.

182

Abilene Paradox

the tendency of people to

resist voicing their true thoughts or feelings in order

to please others and avoid

conflict

true thoughts because they want to please others.57 Courage means speaking your mind even when you know others may disagree with you and may even deride you. Courage also means asking for what you want and setting boundaries. It is the ability to say no to unreasonable demands from others, as well as the ability to ask for what you want to help achieve the vision.

Courage means fighting for valued outcomes that benefit the whole. Leaders take risks, but they do so for a higher pur- pose. For example, Ashok Khemka has been a government worker in India for 21 years, and during that time period he has been demoted or transferred to another department 43 times. Why? Because Khemka is a tireless fighter against corruption, and sometimes he ruffles the wrong feathers. Some people—especially bosses who are bending the rules—see him as a troublemaker, but India’s anti- corruption activists and many people in the community fully support him. “There are two kinds of government officers—officers who work only to please their politi- cal masters, and other officers [like Khemka] who work to uphold the law, who work for justice and the poor,” said advocate Kuldip Tiwari.58

There are many people working in organizations who have the courage to be unconventional, to step up and take responsibility, and to do what they believe is right. Balancing profit with people, self-interest with service, and control with stew- ardship requires individual moral courage.

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Think about situations in which you either assumed or were given a leadership role in a group or organi- zation. Imagine using your own courage as a leader. To what extent does each of the following statements characterize your leadership? Please answer whether each item below is Mostly False or Mostly True for you.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I risk substantial personal loss to achieve the vision.

2. I take personal risks to defend my beliefs.

3. I say no even if I have a lot to lose. 4. I consciously link my actions to

higher values. 5. I don’t hesitate to act against

the opinions and approval of others.

6. I quickly tell people the truth, even when it is negative.

7. I feel relaxed most of the time.

8. I speak out against organizational injustice.

9. I stand up to people if they make offensive remarks.

10. I act according to my conscience even if it means I lose status and approval.

Scoring and Interpretation

Each question above pertains to some aspect of displaying courage in a leadership situation. Add up your points for Mostly True answers: . If you received a score of 7 or higher, you have real potential to act as a courageous leader. A score below 3 indicates that you avoid difficult issues or have not been in situations that challenge your moral leadership. Is your score consistent with your under- standing of your own courage? Look at the individual ques- tions for which you scored Mostly False or Mostly True and think about your specific strengths and weaknesses. Compare your score to that of other students. How might you increase your courage as a leader? Do you want to?

NEW LEADER

Assess your level of leadership

courage by completing the ex-

ercise in Leader’s Self-Insight 6.3.

183

To practice moral leader- ship, leaders have to know themselves, understand their strengths and weaknesses, know what they stand for, and often be nonconformists. Honest self-analysis can be painful, and acknowledging one’s limitations in order to recognize the superior abil- ities of others takes personal strength of character. In addition, moral leadership means building relationships, which requires listening, having significant personal experiences with others, and making yourself vulnerable—qualities that frighten many people. Yet, by getting close and doing what is best for others—sharing the good and the bad, the pain and anger as well as the success and the joy—leaders bring out the best qualities in others.59

An example of this in practice is when William Peace had to initiate a layoff as general manager of the Synthetic Fuels Division of Westinghouse. Peace had the courage to deliver the news about layoffs personally. He took some painful blows in the face-to-face meetings he held with the workers to be laid off, but he believed allowing people to vent their grief and anger at him and the situation was the moral thing to do. His action sent a message that leaders valued employees as human beings with feelings. Thus, employees rededicated themselves to helping save the division.60 For Peace, the courage to practice moral leadership by personally facing employees gained respect, renewed commitment, and higher performance, even though he suffered personally in the short run.

Whistleblowing means employee dis- closure of illegal, immoral, or unethical practices in the organization.61 One recent example is Charles M. Smith, who was the senior civilian overseeing the U.S. Army’s multibillion-dollar contract with KBR when he faced a test of courage. Smith couldn’t find evidence justifying more than $1 billion in costs for food, hous- ing, and others services from the contractor, but he was being asked to approve the payments anyway. He refused to sign off, despite pressures from both Army and civilian officials. Smith was removed from his job and transferred to another posi- tion. He retired soon afterward and went to the media with the story.62

As this example shows, it is highly risky for employees to blow the whistle because they may lose their jobs, be ostracized by coworkers, or be transferred to undesirable positions. Michael Woodford, former president and CEO of Olympus, describes what it was like to be at the center of a major whistleblowing scandal.

Michael Woodford, Olympus Michael Woodford had been with camera maker Olympus for 30 years when he was named

president and CEO in early 2011. That appointment turned out to be the end of his career

with the company as well.

Woodford soon discovered that unauthorized payments had been made to third par-

ties in an effort to hide significant losses. He went to the board, but they ignored his find-

ings. “I begged them to do what was right. I was the president and I was trying to expose a

fraud,” he says.

After he went public, Woodford was voted out of a job. He describes what happened

next: “I was petrified. You feel your career is slipping away. You fear for your safety … there

were implications of ‘anti-social forces,’ which means the yakuza [Japanese mafia].”

Whistleblowing

employee disclosure of ille-

gal, immoral, or unethical

practices in the organization

184

Woodford says as painful as the experience was, it was a huge education, and he has no

regrets for doing the right thing. The entire board at Olympus eventually resigned, and

three senior executives pleaded guilty to fraud. 63

Most whistleblowers, like Charles Smith and Michael Woodford, realize they may suffer financially and emotionally, but they act courageously to do what they think is right. As Woodford says, “If you know something is wrong and you don’t deal with it, you are complicit.”64

How does a leader find the courage to step through fear and confusion, to act despite the risks involved? All of us have the potential to live and act courageously. There are a number of ways leaders can unlock the courage within themselves, including committing to causes they believe in, connecting with others, harnessing anger, and developing their skills.

Courage comes easily when we fight for something we really believe in. Leaders who have a strong emotional commitment to a larger vision or purpose find the courage to step through fear. When Charles Smith, the leader who refused to pay KBR, was asked about his decision, he said, “Ultimately, the money that was going to KBR was money being taken away from the troops, and I wasn’t going to do that.”65 For Smith, caring about the well-being of soldiers gave him the courage to refuse payments to a contractor that he believed were fraudulent. Noorjahan Akbar, the 21-year-old founder of Young Women for Change, says numerous activists fighting for women’s rights in Afghanistan have been injured or killed, but it only strengthened their resolve to push for change. Akbar and others don’t risk their lives just for the thrill of it. They do it for a cause they deeply believe in.66

Caring about others and having support from others is a potent source of courage in a topsy-turvy world. Support for this proposition comes from studies of the civil right movement in the Southern United States in the 1960s. In the Mississippi Freedom Summer Project, young volunteers were recruited to regis- ter black voters, run Freedom Schools, and raise civil rights awareness. Within days of the volunteers arriving in Mississippi, three were kidnapped and killed. Through- out the summer, dozens of churches were set on fire, safe houses were bombed, and volunteers were shot at, beaten, and arrested. A quarter of the volunteers in the pro- gram dropped out. Researchers have looked at what distinguished those who stayed from those who left. The volunteers who stayed were far more likely to have what is referred to as strong ties, close friends who were also in the program and people they were close to back home who were deeply interested in their lives and activities. Those who left the program were just as committed to the goals and purpose, but they typically didn’t have the same social support.67

People who feel alone in the world take fewer risks because they have more to lose.68 Interestingly, although social media such as Twitter and Facebook has made it easier for people to join with others to support social causes or push for change within organizations, there is some evidence that social media actually reduces strong ties (deep personal connections), making it harder for people to express courage when they need it.69

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can find your

personal courage by commit-

ting to something you deeply

believe in. You can welcome

potential failure as a means of

growth and development and

build bonds of caring and

mutual support with family,

friends, and colleagues to

reduce fear.

185

If you have ever been really angry about something, you know that it can cause you to forget about fear of failure, fear of embarrassment, or fear that others won’t like you. Peggy Payne, now in her mid-60s, has had a highly successful career as a journalist and author but says she still gets angry when she thinks about not being chosen to attend the prestigious Governor’s School of North Carolina when she was 16 years old. The anger, she says, helped fuel a commitment to show everyone she could be successful.70 Frustration and anger spurred Glenn McIntyre to found a company. After he was paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, McIntyre got angry every time he stayed at a hotel. His anger and frustration over how poorly hotels served disabled guests gave him the courage to stop feeling sorry for himself and start a new business, Access Designs. The firm helps hotels such as Quality Suites and Renaissance Ramada redesign their space to be more usable for disabled travelers.71 Anger, in moderate amounts, is a healthy emotion that provides energy to move forward. The challenge is to harness anger and use it appropriately.72

In most cases within organizations, finding courage is a deliberate act rather than an instantaneous response.73 Courage can be thought of as a decision- making skill that is developed through conscious thought and practice. Courageous leaders are not reckless and foolhardy; they typically are people who have developed

Courage Goes to Work: How to Build Backbones, Boost Performance, and Get Results

by Bill Treasurer

Bill Treasurer, the author of , grew up in a household where

lessons about courage were treated as importantly as lessons about history or arithmetic. That gave him an early understanding of courage as a skill that is developed with practice and strength- ened when it is used. The founder and chief encouragement officer at Giant Leap Consulting, Treasurer draws upon his experiences helping people and organizations be more courageous to give us all some tips in this book.

THREE TYPES OF COURAGE

“Courage is, most often, a behavioral response to a challenge,” writes Treasurer. “As a manager, you have a responsibility, indeed an obligation, to activate the cour- age of those around you.” To tap into and strengthen one’s own courage and the courage of followers, leaders can under- stand three types of courage that are important in the workplace.

• This is the courage to take initiative, to “step up to the plate” rather than playing it safe. To

help followers practice try courage skills, leaders help people build on their strengths, provide challenging assignments that require people to stretch themselves, encourage novel approaches and experimentation, accept mistakes, and reward persis- tence in the face of obstacles.

• The second type of courage is the courage to trust and rely on others. Leaders trust others to gain trust in return. They give people the benefit of the doubt, and they give employees lots of lati- tude in how to accomplish their tasks. Leaders build trust courage by respecting followers, being hon- est but kind and courteous, and get- ting to know people on an emotional level. They can help fol- lowers practice trust courage by encouraging them to open up about their feelings, desires, dreams, and fears.

• “I have come to believe that the TELL Courage bucket is the one most in need of

filling,” says Treasurer. When people are afraid to speak up about mis- takes, voice contrary opinions, ques- tion their leaders, and point out wrongdoing, companies suffer, as many leaders have learned in recent years. Leaders build tell courage by encouraging people to speak up, genuinely listening to others, not taking things personally, avoiding blame and defensiveness, and, when appropriate, acting on what they are told.

MODELING COURAGE

“When your behaviors are directed by courageous impulses, you are operating out of your best and bravest self,” writes Treasurer. “When other people witness your newfound behaviors … they grad- ually step into their own courage, too.” To help others find and develop their courage means leaders must first find and develop their own.

Source: , by Bill Treasurer, is published by Berrett-Koehler.

186

the skills and resources they need to take a difficult stand or pursue a tough course of action. In addition, courageous leaders can develop courageous followers by modeling courage in their own behavior and by helping people practice courage, as described in this chapter’s Leader’s Bookshelf.

One leader who was promoted to CFO was being pressured to restate restructur- ing charges so it would look more favorable and help the stock price. Rather than sim- ply refusing to do so, this leader developed an integrity campaign, reminding people of the firm’s strong tradition of values-driven leadership. This provided support to other leaders who didn’t want to go along with the unethical behavior but didn’t have the courage to resist pressures from more senior executives.74 Good leaders remind them- selves that dealing with difficult ethical issues is a crucial part of their jobs.

Now that you’ve read the chapter, check out how today’s leaders are applying these concepts. LogintoCengageNOW tofollowtheleadersonTwitter.

This chapter explored a number of ideas concerning moral leadership and lead- ership courage. People want honest and trustworthy leaders. However, leaders face many pressures that challenge their ability to do the right thing—pressures to cut costs, increase profits, meet the demands of various stakeholders, and look successful. Creating an ethical organization requires that leaders act based on moral principles. Leaders are the symbols for the organization’s ethical climate. When they exces- sively promote self-interest, practice deception and breach agreements, and lack the courage to confront unjust acts, they hurt the organization and everyone associated with it. Ethical leaders are humble, honest, and straightforward. They maintain a concern for the greater good, strive for fairness, and demon- strate the courage to stand up for what is right. Acting as a moral leader means demonstrating the importance of serving people and society as well as increas- ing profits or personal gain. One personal consideration for leaders is the level of moral development. Lea- ders use an understanding of the stages of moral development to enhance their own as well as followers’ moral growth. Leaders who operate at higher stages of moral development focus on the needs of followers and universal moral principles. Ideas about control versus service between leaders and followers are changing and expanding, reflected in a continuum of leader–follower relationships. The continuum varies from authoritarian managers to participative managers to stewardship to servant leadership. Leaders who operate from the principles of stewardship and servant leadership can help build ethical organizations. The final sections of the chapter discussed leadership courage and how leaders can find their own courage. Courage means having the mental and moral strength to confront, persevere through, and withstand danger, difficulty, or fear. Courageous leaders accept responsibility, take risks and make changes, speak their minds, and fight for what they believe. Two expressions of courage in organizations are moral leadership and ethical whistleblowing. Sources of courage include belief in a higher purpose, connection with others, harnessing anger, and developing courage step by step.

187

1. What are some pressures you face as a student that challenge your ability to do the right thing? Do you expect to face more or fewer pressures as a leader? Discuss what some of these pressures might be.

2. If most adults are at a conventional level of moral development, what does this mean for their potential for moral leadership?

3. How might understanding the difference between “fear” and “F.E.A.R.,” as described in the chapter, make you a better leader? Can you name an example from your own life of “false evidence appearing real”?

4. One finding is that when leaders are under stress so that fear and risk increase, they tend to revert to an authoritarian, command-and-control style. As a leader, how might you find the courage to resist this tendency?

5. If you were in a position as a student similar to Mike McQueary at Pennsylvania State University, what do you think you would do? Why?

6. Should serving others be placed at a higher moral level than serving oneself? Discuss.

7. If it is immoral to prevent those around you from growing to their fullest potential, are you being moral?

8. Leaders at several organizations, including Hostess Brands (Twinkies), Sbarro, and Block- buster, have gotten significant raises or bonuses shortly before the firms filed for bankruptcy. The companies have argued that it was a necessary step to keep managers during a difficult time. Do you think this is a legitimate argument from an ethical standpoint? Discuss.

9. Do you agree that it is important for leaders to do the right thing even if no one will ever know about it? Why or why not?

10. A consultant recently argued that the emphasis on corporate governance and social responsibility has distracted leaders from key business issues such as serving customers and beating competitors. Do you agree? Should leaders put business issues first or ethi- cal issues first?

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Scary Person Think of a person in your life right now who is something of a scary person for you. Scary people are those you don’t really know but who are scary to you because you anticipate that you won’t like them, perhaps because you don’t like the way they act or look from a distance, and hence you avoid building relationships with them. A scary person might be a student at school, someone at work, a neighbor, or someone you are aware of in your social circle.

Scary people trigger a small amount of fear in us—that is why we avoid them and don’t really get to know them. A test of courage is whether you can step through your fear. You will experience fear many times as a leader.

For this exercise, your assignment is to reach out to one or more scary persons in your life. Invite the person for lunch or just walk up and introduce yourself and start a conversa- tion. Perhaps you can volunteer to work with the person on an assignment. The key thing is to step through your fear and get to know this person well enough to know what he or she is really like.

After you have completed your assignment, share what happened with another person. Were you able to reach out to the scary person? What did you discover about the scary per- son? What did you discover about yourself by doing this activity? If you found the exercise

188

silly and refused to do it, you may have let F.E.A.R. get the better of you by rationalizing that the assignment has little value.

The instructor can give this assignment to be done prior to a specific class. During class it is a good exercise for students to discuss their scary person experiences among them- selves in small groups. The instructor can ask students to report to their groups about the scary person, revealing as many details as they are comfortable with, explaining how they summoned the courage to reach out, and the result. After the groups have finished their exchange, the instructor can ask a couple of student volunteers to report their experiences to the entire class. Then students can be asked questions such as: Looking back on this expe- rience, what is courage? How was it expressed (or not) in this exercise? How will fear and courage be part of your organizational leadership?

Check out CengageNOW for additional cases with interactive activities.

C f i

“What Should I Say?” The sudden heart attack of his predecessor, Bill Andrews, propelled Russell Hart into a tem- porary top management assignment for Kresk International in the company’s new Middle East Division in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Kresk management had targeted Saudi as a must- have division and was enthusiastic about the expansion.

After six months of a one-year assignment in Riyadh with travel throughout the Mid- dle East, Russell was making a brief trip to Dallas to report at the semi-annual board meet- ing before returning to Saudi. He understood that in addition to his assessment of the company’s situation in the region, a portion of the board meeting would focus on the improved health condition of Andrews and, based on that, a determination would be made as to whether he or Bill Andrews would have the permanent assignment at the end of the year. The two were close friends and had corresponded regularly over the past months, and Russell looked forward to Bill’s full recovery and return to work. However, single and adventurous by nature, Russell enjoyed the company’s top assignment and hoped to impress management at the meeting so that he would be named director of the Middle East Division.

“Here’s where my personal ambitions and my personal ethics collide,” Russell admitted to his assistant Christopher Dunn as the Kresk corporate jet left Riyadh. “I mean, look at all of this. It’s a dream job. It’s my dream job and I can do this. If anyone had told me back in high school in Nebraska that I would be on a corporate jet flying from Saudi Arabia, I’d have laughed them out of Sydney.”

“Excuse me, Russell, would you and Christopher care for anything to drink?” the cabin attendant asked.

“Yes, a Jameson,” Russell said. “Same here,” Christopher added. As the attendant walked away, Russell leaned over, speaking quietly. “Corporate is so

enthusiastic about this region. They are expecting nothing short of a glowing report that basically says, ‘Wow, we really hit the jackpot with this move.’ And that’s what we’ve put together here over the past few weeks. It looks fantastic! But my little man in here,” he said, pointing to his stomach, “keeps nagging me—do I give them, ‘Wow, we hit the jackpot’ and become the darling of the company, or do I give them the truth, that we have some potential serious problems with this division . . .”

“… And hand the job to Bill,” Christopher said as the drinks arrived. “Exactly. By the end of the year, their numbers may look great and they may meet our

performance standards, but I have serious problems with the management here. I realize that we’re working with a different culture and I can make allowances. I have no problem pacing my day around their prayer obligations. I know to avoid any business during Ramadan or

189

around the two Eids. I’ve become comfortable meeting a sheikh or sayyid* and I’ve even lost my sense of self-consciousness when a businessman holds my hand to lead me into a room. I can deal with all of these things. But there is a level here within the organization that bothers me and that I think would bother most managers at headquarters and that’s what I struggle with in this report. Should I be honest?”

“Well, you know—honesty is the best …” “Don’t say it. This is my career we’re talking about.” “OK, what do you want to add—or not add?” “The major problem here is Youssef Said,” Russell said. “I know. But I think I would stay away from mentioning that. The company loves the guy.

Bill Andrews has been his champion because of excellent results, at least in the short run.” “I don’t agree. And I think they won’t when they see him in action. I don’t understand

why Bill supports him.” “They’ve seen him in action,” Christopher said. “Oh, they’ve seen what he wants them to see. You and I have seen his interaction with

staff and employees on a daily basis. His mistreatment of people is appalling. I see a total disregard for the opinions of others, and he seems to take considerable pleasure in humiliat- ing people. He screams at them! A few have quit. I’ve questioned him about it a couple of times and all he says is, ‘I know. Please understand …’ ”

“It is the way it is done here,” Christopher said, completing the phrase the two heard on a regular basis.

“I don’t believe it is the way it’s done here. It’s not our culture, at least not in the U.S. and Europe. I think this has always been his way. I wonder about the effects on morale, and I think the people who work here will believe the company is in agreement with him and that this is our policy,” Russell said. “Youssef has that little inner circle of family and friends that he trusts and really nothing beyond that. To me, it seems he’s always working a deal, bending a rule. I know that Arabs love to trade and love to negotiate, but there are too many favors, too many unwritten agreements and payments, and I wonder if we should intervene. I wonder if international laws or the company’s own ethics are being set aside. I have serious doubts that this guy is going to work with the Kresk culture and our company ethics. But do I need to include my concerns in this initial report …”

“Or will you just be busting the board’s bubble, and raise doubts about Bill, or perhaps they will doubt you and risk your shot at the job you want?”

“On the other hand, if I am seeing what I consider severe long-term problems and say noth- ing now, in this report, and the problems show up later, will I be guilty of breaking a code of ethics?” Russell paused. “So, Christopher, what do I say tomorrow at the board meeting?”

QUESTIONS

1. What do you think Russell Hart should include in his report about Youssef Said? Why? What would you do in his position?

2. What amount or kind of courage will be required for Hart to disclose everything hon- estly? How would you advise Hart to acquire that courage?

3. At which stage of Kohlberg’s moral development scale would you place Youssef Said, Russell Hart, and Bill Andrews? Why?

Notes: *Descendant of the Prophet Muhammad

The Boy, the Girl, the Ferryboat Captain, and the Hermits There was an island, and on this island there lived a girl. A short distance away there was another island, and on this island there lived a boy. The boy and the girl were very much in love with each other.

The boy had to leave his island and go on a long journey, and he would be gone for a very long time. The girl felt that she must see the boy one more time before he went away.

190

There was only one way to get from the island where the girl lived to the boy’s island, and that was on a ferryboat that was run by a ferryboat captain. And so the girl went down to the dock and asked the ferryboat captain to take her to the island where the boy lived. The ferryboat captain agreed and asked her for the fare. The girl told the ferryboat captain that she did not have any money. The ferryboat captain told her that money was not necessary: “I will take you to the other island if you will stay with me tonight.”

The girl did not know what to do, so she went up into the hills on her island until she came to a hut where a hermit lived. We will call him the first hermit. She related the whole story to the hermit and asked for his advice. The hermit listened carefully to her story, and then told her, “I cannot tell you what to do. You must weigh the alternatives and the sacri- fices that are involved and come to a decision within your own heart.”

And so the girl went back down to the dock and accepted the ferryboat captain’s offer. The next day, when the girl arrived on the other island, the boy was waiting at the dock to greet her. They embraced, and then the boy asked her how she got over to his island, for he knew she did not have any money. The girl explained the ferryboat captain’s offer and what she did. The boy pushed her away from him and said, “We’re through. That’s the end. Go away from me. I never want to see you again,” and he left her.

The girl was desolate and confused. She went up into the hills of the boy’s island to a hut where a second hermit lived. She told the whole story to the second hermit and asked him what she should do. The hermit told her that there was nothing she could do, that she was welcome to stay in his hut, to partake of his food, and to rest on his bed while he went down into the town and begged for enough money to pay the girl’s fare back to her own island.

When the second hermit returned with the money for her, the girl asked him how she could repay him. The hermit answered, “You owe me nothing. We owe this to each other. I am only too happy to be of help.” And so the girl went back down to the dock and returned to her own island.

QUESTIONS

1. List in order the characters in this story that you like, from most to least. What values governed your choices?

2. Rate the characters on their level of moral development. Explain.

3. Evaluate each character’s level of courage. Discuss.

1. Christine Roberts, “Malala Yousafzai Returns to School for First Time since She Was Shot by the Taliban,” Daily News (March 19, 2013), http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/18/sisters -in-arms-young-afghan-activist-continues-malala-s-fight.html#body _text2 (accessed April 2, 2013); Alia E. Dastagir, “Pakistan Girl Shot by Taliban Seals Book Deal,” USA Today (March 28, 2013), http:// www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/27/malala-pakistan -book-deal/2026697/ (accessed April 2, 2013); and “Young Journalist Inspires Fellow Students,” Institute for War and Peace Reporting (December 5, 2009), http://iwpr.net/report-news/young-journalist -inspires-fellow-students-0 (accessed April 2, 2013).

2. Roberts, “Malala Yousafzai Returns to School.”

3. Ben Worthen and Joann S. Lublin, “Mark Hurd Neglected to Follow H-P Code,” The Wall Street Journal (August 9, 2010), p. B1; Miguel Bustillo, “Best Buy Chairman to Resign After Probe,” The Wall Street Journal (May 15, 2012), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230 4192704577403922338506912.html (accessed April 3, 2013); and Amir Efrati and Joann S. Lublin, “Yahoo CEO’s Downfall,” The Wall Street Journal Online (May 15, 2012), http://online.wsj.com/article /SB10001424052702304192704577404530999458956.html (accessed July 2, 2012).

4. Anemona Hartocollis, “At Ailing Brooklyn Hospital, Insider Deals and Lavish Perks,” The New York Times (March 26, 2012), p. A1.

5. Chuck Salter, paraphrasing Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic, in “Mr. Inside Speaks Out,” Fast Company (September 2004), pp. 92–93.

6. Floyd Norris, “In Actions, S. & P. Risked Andersen’s Fate,” The New York Times (February 7, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/ 08/business/sp-may-have-tempted-arthur-andersens-fate.html?page wanted=all&_r=0 (accessed February 8, 2013).

7. Margaret Wheatley, “Fearless Leaders: We Need Them Here and Now,” Leadership Excellence (June 2010), pp. 5–6.

8. Roger Martin, “The CEO’s Ethical Dilemma in the Era of Earnings Management,” Strategy & Leadership 39, no. 6 (2011), pp. 43–47.

9. Quoted in David Wessel, “Venal Sins: Why the Bad Guys of the Boardroom Emerged en Masse,” The Wall Street Journal (June 20, 2002), pp. A1, A6.

10. Ronald W. Clement, “Just How Unethical Is American Business?” Business Horizons 49 (2006), pp. 313–327.

11. Gary R. Weaver, Linda Klebe Treviño, and Bradley Agle, “ ‘Somebody I Look Up To’: Ethical Role Models in Organizations,” Organiza- tional Dynamics 34, no. 4 (2005), pp. 313–330; Joseph L. Badaracco

191

Jr. and Allen P. Webb, “Business Ethics: A View from the Trenches,” California Management Review 37, no. 2 (Winter 1995), pp. 8–28; and Arlen W. Langvardt, “Ethical Leadership and the Dual Roles of Examples,” Business Horizons 55 (2012), pp. 373–384.

12. Michiko Kakutani, “The Tsunami That Buried a Wall Street Giant,” The New York Times (March 10, 2009), p. C4.

13. Ben DiPietro, “CEOs Emphasize Trust Is Anchor of a Strong Corporate Ethics Philosophy,” The Wall Street Journal Online (March 6, 2013), http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2013/03 /06/ceos-emphasize-trust-is-anchor-of-a-strong-corporate-ethics- philosophy/ (accessed April 3, 2013); and Jennifer Schiavone, “Tip Sheet: A New Company Launch—from the Inside Out,” PR News (November 19, 2012), http://www.prnewsonline.com/featured /2012/11/19/tip-sheet-a-new-company-launchfrom-the-inside-out/ (accessed April 3, 2013).

14. This section is based on Donald G. Zauderer, “Integrity: An Essential Executive Quality,” Business Forum (Fall, 1992), pp. 12–16.

15. “New York’s Pension Scandal,” The New York Times (October 7, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/opinion/08fri2.html?_r=0 (accessed April 3, 2013); and “Review Shows NY Pension Fund Fixed Ethics,” The Wall Street Journal (February 19, 2013), http://online.wsj.com/article /APa0f276305f884319a004f97a2de34b8a.html (accessed April 3, 2013).

16. Patricia Wallington, “Honestly?!” CIO (March 15, 2003), pp. 41–42.

17. Langvardt, “Ethical Leadership and the Dual Roles of Examples”; Jeremy Roebuck and Amy Worden, “McQueary Affirms Report to Officials: Says He Told of Seeing ‘Severe Sexual Acts’ in the Showers,” Philadelphia Inquirer (December 17, 2011), p. A1; Jo Becker, “E-Mails Suggest Paterno Role in Silence on Sandusky,” The New York Times (July 1, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01 /sports/ncaafootball/paterno-may-have-influenced-decision-not-to -report-sandusky-e-mails-indicate.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 (accessed July 9, 2012); Drew Sharp, “At Penn State, Football Bigger Than Principle,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (June 25, 2012), p. A8; and Alina Tugend, “Doing the Ethical Thing May Be Right, But It Isn’t Automatic,” The New York Times (November 18, 2011).

18. Langvardt, “Ethical Leadership and the Dual Roles of Examples.”

19. Carly Fiorina, “Corporate Leadership and the Crisis,” The Wall Street Journal (December 12, 2008), p. A19.

20. Al Gini, “Moral Leadership and Business Ethics,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 4, no. 4 (Fall 1997), pp. 64–81.

21. Henry Ford Sr., quoted by Thomas Donaldson, Corporations and Morality (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1982), p. 57.

22. Michael E. Brown and Linda K. Treviño, “Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions,” The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006), pp. 595–616; Darin W. White and Emily Lean, “The Impact of Perceived Leader Integrity on Subordinates in a Work Team Environment,” Journal of Business Ethics 81 (2008), pp. 767–778; Gary R. Weaver, Linda K. Treviño, and Bradley Agle, “ ‘Somebody I Look Up To’: Ethical Role Models in Organizations,” Organizational Dynamics 34, no. 4 (2005), pp. 313–330; and Badaracco and Webb, “Business Ethics: A View from the Trenches.”

23. Joseph Weber, “The New Ethics Enforcers,” BusinessWeek (February 13, 2006), pp. 76–77.

24. MoreThanWheelsMissionandCoreValues,http://www.morethanwheels .org/mission (accessed May 18, 2013).

25. Rashid Ameer and Radiah Othman, “Sustainability Practices and Corporate Financial Performance: A Study Based on the Top Global Corporations,” Journal of Business Ethics 108, no. 1 (June 2012), pp. 61–79.

26. Curtis C. Verschoor and Elizabeth A. Murphy, “The Financial Performance of Large U.S. Firms and Those with Global Prominence: How Do the Best Corporate Citizens Rate?” Business and Society Review 107, no. 3 (Fall 2002), pp. 371–381.

27. Phred Dvorak, “Finding the Best Measure of ‘Corporate Citizen- ship,’ ” The Wall Street Journal (July 2, 2007), p. B3.

28. Zauderer, “Integrity: An Essential Executive Quality.”

29. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1993), p. 255.

30. Mary C. Gentile, “Combating Ethical Cynicism and Voicing Values in the Workplace,” Ivey Business Journal (May–June 2011), http://www .iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/combating-ethical-cynicism -and-voicing-values-in-the-workplace (accessed April 3, 2013).

31. Lawrence Kohlberg, “Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive Developmental Approach,” in Thomas Likona, ed., Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues (Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), pp. 31–53; Linda K. Treviño, Gary R. Weaver, and Scott J. Reynolds, “Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review,” Journal of Management 32, no. 6 (December 2006), pp. 951–990; Jill W. Graham, “Leadership, Moral Development, and Citizenship Behavior,” Business Ethics Quarterly 5, no. 1 (January 1995), pp. 43–54; James Weber, “Exploring the Relationship between Personal Values and Moral Reasoning,” Human Relations 46, no. 4 (April 1993), pp. 435–463; and Duane M. Covrig, “The Organizational Context of Moral Dilemmas: The Role of Moral Leadership in Administration in Making and Breaking Dilemmas,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 7, no. 1 (2000), pp. 40–59.

32. Vivian Yee, “Stuyvesant Students Describe the How and the Why of Cheating,” The New York Times (September 25, 2012), http://www .nytimes.com/2012/09/26/education/stuyvesant-high-school-students -describe-rationale-for-cheating.html?pagewanted=all (accessed April 3, 2013).

33. Quoted in Richard Pérez-Peña, “Studies Find More Students Cheating, with High Achievers No Exception,” The New York Times (September 7, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08 /education/studies-show-more-students-cheat-even-high-achievers .html (accessed April 3, 2013).

34. Anthony F. Buono et al., “Acting Ethically: Moral Reasoning and Business School Student Behavior,” SAM Advanced Management Journal (Summer 2012), pp. 18–26.

35. J. R. Rest, D. Narvaez, M. J. Bebeau, and S. J. Thoma, Postconven- tional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999).

36. James Weber, “Exploring the Relationship between Personal Values and Moral Reasoning,” Human Relations 46, no. 4 (April 1993), pp. 435–463.

37. White and Lean, “The Impact of Perceived Leader Integrity on Subordinates in a Work Team Environment”; Peter Block, “Reassign- ing Responsibility,” Sky (February 1994), pp. 26–31; and David P. McCaffrey, Sue R. Faerman, and David W. Hart, “The Appeal and Difficulty of Participative Systems,” Organization Science 6, no. 6 (November–December 1995), pp. 603–627.

38. Block, “Reassigning Responsibility.”

39. This discussion of stewardship is based on Peter Block, Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993), pp. 29–31; Block, “Reassigning Responsibility”; Morela Hernandez, “Promoting Stewardship Behavior in Organizations: A Leadership Model,” Journal of Business Ethics 80, no. 1 (June 2008), pp. 121–128; Morela Hernandez, “Toward an Understanding of the Psychology of Stewardship,” Academy of Management Review 37, no. 2 (2012), pp. 172–193; and Gary Hamel, “Leaders as Stewards: What Matters Are Bedrock Values,” Leadership Excellence (August 2012), p. 5.

40. Martin Edwards, “Workforce Engagement: Case Study of an Award- Winning Leadership Model,” Industrial and Commercial Training 44, no. 3 (2012), pp. 132–138.

192

41. Lawrence G. Foster, Robert Wood Johnson—The Gentleman Rebel (Lemont, PA: Lillian Press, 1999); and John Cunniff, “Businessman’s Honesty, Integrity Lesson for Today,” Johnson City Press (May 28, 2000).

42. Adam Bluestein, “Start a Company. Change the World.” Inc. (May 2011), pp. 71–80.

43. Sen Sendjaya and James C. Sarros, “Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and Application in Organizations,” Journal of Leader- ship and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2 (2002), pp. 57–64. Examples include B. M. Bass, “The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 7, no. 3 (2000), pp. 18–40; I. H. Buchen, “Servant Leadership: A Model for Future Faculty and Future Institutions,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 5, no. 1 (1998), pp. 125–134; Y. Choi and R. R. Mai-Dalton, “On the Leadership Function of Self-Sacrifice,” Leadership Quarterly 9, no. 4 (1998), pp. 475–501; and R. F. Russell, “The Role of Values in Servant Leadership,” Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 22, no. 2 (2001), pp. 76–83.

44. Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1977).

45. The following is based on Greenleaf, Servant Leadership; Walter Kiechel III, “The Leader as Servant,” Fortune (May 4, 1992), pp. 121–122; and Mary Sue Polleys, “One University’s Response to the Anti-Leadership Vaccine: Developing Servant Leaders,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 8, no. 3 (2002), pp. 117–130.

46. Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and Application in Organizations.”

47. Susan Dominus, “Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead?” The New York Times Magazine (March 27, 2013). http://www.nytimes.com /2013/03/31/magazine/is-giving-the-secret-to-getting-ahead.html? pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed April 4, 2013).

48. C. William Pollard, “The Leader Who Serves,” in Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard, eds., The Leader of the Future (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), pp. 241–248; and C. W. Pollard, “The Leader Who Serves,” Strategy and Leadership (September–October 1997), pp. 49–51.

49. Peter Voyer, “Courage in Leadership: From the Battlefield to the Boardroom,” Ivey Business Journal (November–December 2011), http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/courage-in -leadership-from-the-battlefield-to-the-boardroom (accessed November 24, 2011).

50. John McCain, “In Search of Courage,” Fast Company (September 2004), pp. 53–56.

51. Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel, Fusion Leadership: Unlocking the Subtle Forces That Change People and Organizations (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1998).

52. The F.E.A.R. acronym and the quote are from Brian Clark, “Is F.E.A.R. Holding You Back?” Copyblogger.com (May 28, 2010), http://www.copyblogger.com/f-e-a-r/ (accessed May 19, 2011).

53. Dominus, “Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead?”

54. Brian Moriarty and R. Edward Freeman, “Case in Point: To Go from Worst to First, Alter the Business Model,” The Washington Post (December 10, 2011), http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011 -12-10/business/35286296_1_aetna-employees-john-w-rowe -business-model (accessed December 11, 2011).

55. Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura, “Official Quickly Corralled Agents,” The Washington Post (April 22, 2012), p. A1; David Nakamura, “Out of Public Eye, a Disgusted Secret Service Director,” The Washington Post (April 26, 2012), p. A1; Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura, “Four in Secret Service Fight Back,” The

Washington Post (May 23, 2012), p. A1; and William Neuman, “Prostitutes Perplexed as Glare Falls on City’s Brothels,” The New York Times (April 25, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04 /26/world/americas/cartagenas-prostitutes-perplexed-by-global-glare .html?_r=0 (accessed April 6, 2013).

56. Michael Luo, “Revisiting a SocialExperiment, and theFearThatGoes with It,” The New York Times (September 14, 2004), Section B, p. 1.

57. Jerry B. Harvey, The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988), pp. 13–15.

58. Simon Denyer, “Incorruptible Indian Bureaucrat Hounded Out of Office for Fighting Graft—43 Times,” The Washington Post (October 22, 2012), http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-22 /world/35500968_1_ashok-khemka-vadra-case-robert-vadra (accessed October 23, 2012).

59. A. J. Vogl, “Risky Work” (an interview with Max DuPree), Across the Board (July/August 1993), pp. 27–31.

60. William H. Peace, “The Hard Work of Being a Soft Manager,” Harvard Business Review (November–December 1991), pp. 40–47.

61. Janet P. Near and Marcia P. Miceli, “Effective Whistle-Blowing,” Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3 (1995), pp. 679–708.

62. James Risen, “Army Overseer Tells of Ouster over KBR Stir,” The New York Times (June 17, 2008), http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06 /17/washington/17contractor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed April 8, 2013); and John Baldoni, “Putting Courage into Action for Others and Yourself,” Leader to Leader (Winter 2011), pp. 24–26.

63. Robert Jeffery, “Whistleblowers: ‘Suddenly I Was the Lead in a John Grisham Novel’: How Michael Woodford, The CEO Who Exposed the Olympus Fraud, Gambled His Career on Doing the Right Thing,” People Management (November 2012), pp. 28–29.

64. Ibid.

65. Risen, “Army Overseer Tells of Ouster.”

66. Alyse Walsh, “Sisters in Arms: Young Afghan Activist Continues Malala’s Fight,” The Daily Beast (October 18, 2012), http://www .thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/18/sisters-in-arms-young-afghan -activist-continues-malala-s-fight.html (accessed April 8, 2013).

67. Discussed in Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” The New Yorker (October 4, 2010), http:// www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell (accessed April 8, 2013).

68. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988).

69. Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”; and Wheatley, “Fearless Leaders.”

70. Peggy Payne, “How Insults Spur Success,” The New York Times (October 15, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/jobs/16pre .html?_r=0 (accessed April 8, 2013).

71. Michael Warshaw, ed., “Great Comebacks,” Success (July/August 1995), pp. 33–46.

72. Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up to and for Our Leaders (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1995).

73. This section is based on Kathleen K. Reardon, “Courage as a Skill,” Harvard Business Review (January 2007), pp. 58–64; Mary C. Gentile, “Managing Yourself: Keeping Your Colleagues Honest,” Harvard Business Review (March 2010), pp. 114–117; and Wheatley, “Fearless Leaders.”

74. Based on Wheatley, “Fearless Leaders”; and Gentile, “Managing Yourself: Keeping Your Colleagues Honest” (example reported in Gentile).

193

YOUR CHALLENGE After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Effectively manage both up and down the hierarchy.

• Recognize your followership style and take steps to become a more effective follower.

• Understand the leader’s role in developing effective followers.

• Apply the principles of effective followership, including responsibility, service, challenging authority, participating in change, and knowing when to leave.

• Implement the strategies for effective followership at school or work.

• Know what followers want from leaders and what leaders expect from followers.

• Use feedback and leadership coaching to help followers grow and achieve their potential.

CHAPTER 196

198

199

202

208

211

197

202

206

210

201

204

214

207

216

217

218

I rving Christopher and Angela Navarro are standing on a cliff looking out over the ocean. It’s been a great two days, learning about how to be a better leader in today’s multicultural, social media-crazy workplace. Now the seminar is over

and the two middle managers are taking a stroll along the cliff before driving home and returning to their regular work after the weekend. “You know,” says Christopher, “this has all been enlightening, but I have such good subordinates that if I decided to jump off this cliff they would jump with me.” Navarro hesitates, then says, “I don’t know if I’d say they’re so good, Irv. If members of my team saw me about to go over this cliff, they would stop me and tell me why I shouldn’t do it!”1

Which leader do you say has the best followers? Some experts on leadership and followership would say that neither model reflects highly effective followers. Sure, blindly following your leader in jumping off a cliff isn’t a good idea, but leaders want followers who will not try to stop them from taking risks and pursuing difficult challenges that are in the best interest of the organization. The best followers see where the leader wants to go and why, and then help find the best way to get there quickly, safely, and effectively.2

In this chapter, we examine the important role of followership, including the nature of the follower’s role, what leaders want from followers, and the different

195

styles of followership that individuals express. The chapter explores how effective followers behave, discusses strategies for managing up, and looks at the sources of power and courage for managing up. Finally, we look at what followers want from leaders and examine the leader’s role in developing and supporting followers.

Leadership and followership are closely intertwined. Considering leadership the sole basis for success of the organization is a flawed assumption, and it limits the opportu- nity for people throughout the organization to accept responsibility and make active, valuable contributions.3 For any group or organization to succeed, there must be peo- ple who willingly and effectively follow just as there must be those who willingly and effectively lead. Followership is the testing ground, a place to learn skills valuable for leadership. Moreover, leadership and followership are fundamental roles that indivi- duals shift into and out of under various conditions. Everyone—leaders included—is a follower at one time or another. Indeed, despite the focus on leadership, most of us are more often followers than leaders.4 Therefore, it is important for people to learn to manage both up and down the hierarchy, as illustrated in Exhibit 7.1

Managing up means consciously and deliberately developing a meaningful, task- related, mutually respectful relationship with your direct superiors; offering insight, information, guidance, and initiative; and challenging your superiors when neces- sary in order to enable all members to do their best work for the organization.5

Source: Based on Mark Hurwitz and Samantha Hurwitz, “The Romance of the Follower: Part 2,” Industrial and Commercial Training

41, no. 4 (2009), pp. 199–206.

Managing up

consciously and deliberately

developing a meaningful,

task-related, mutually

respectful relationship with your direct superiors

196

People who effectively manage both up and down the hierarchy are more success- ful. Leaders at higher organizational levels depend on their subordinates for infor- mation, support, and assistance in accomplishing the organization’s goals, so your boss needs you to manage up. In addition, your subordinates depend on you to help them get the information, resources, support, and recognition they need and deserve from higher levels. People like working for leaders who have influence with their superiors because it enhances their own status in the organization and helps them get what they need to do their jobs well.6 You can’t be a really good leader unless you manage the boss as skillfully as you manage employees.

Many new leaders are uncomfortable with the idea of managing their boss. Their over- riding concern is pleasing the boss and keeping him or her happy. Therefore, they hesi- tate to pass along any information that might not be welcome, and they avoid questioning any of their superior’s assumptions, ideas, or decisions.7 In the long run, these self-protective strategies hurt the employee, the boss, and the organization.

One reason we may have difficulty managing upward is that we’re not “in con- trol” in this relationship as we are in our relationships with subordinates. It is nat- ural that we try to protect ourselves in a relationship where we feel we have little control and little power.8 Yet in reality we have more power than we know. Bosses need our support—our talent, information, ideas, and honesty—in order to do their jobs well, just as we need their support to do our best work. Everyone benefits when leaders learn to effectively manage relationships with superiors as well as sub- ordinates. Consider the following examples.

Irvin D. Yalom and Marcia Reynolds Psychology professor Irvin D. Yalom has some interesting stories from his counseling experi-

ence with clients in individual and group therapy. One woman ranted at length in a group

therapy session about her boss, who never listened and refused to pay her any respect.

There’s nothing funny about a bad boss, but the interesting thing about this client was

that as her work with Yalom continued, her complaints about her terrible boss persisted

through three different jobs with three different supervisors. It is likely that not only she

but also her supervisors, colleagues, and the companies where she worked suffered due to

her unproductive relationships with her superiors.

Contrast this woman’s attitude and approach to that of Marcia Reynolds, who once

worked for a micromanaging boss who was always criticizing and correcting her work. Rey-

nolds decided to stop resenting his micromanaging and instead “act as though he were the

world’s best boss with the world’s best employee.” Instead of complaining and pushing back

when her boss micromanaged, Reynolds was cheerful and helpful. She says an interesting

thing happened: “When I stopped resisting, he started trusting me. When there was no longer

any resistance, he quit fighting. Doing that really empowered me.” As her boss increasingly

trusted Reynolds, his micromanaging continued to abate, their relationship continued to

improve, and both were happier and more productive. Reynolds was able to better do her

job and get her subordinates what they needed by learning to manage up. 9

197

Marcia Reynolds improved her relationship with her boss by understanding that being supportive and helpful was more productive than being resentful. To effectively manage up requires understanding what leaders want and need.

Leaders and organizational situations vary, but there are some qualities and behaviors that every good leader wants from his or her followers. The following are ones that have been shown to contribute to productive and rewarding leader–follower relationships.10

1. A Make-It-Happen Attitude. Leaders don’t want excuses. They want results. A leader’s job becomes smoother when he or she has followers who are positive and self-motivated, who can get things done, who accept responsibility, and who excel at required tasks. Leaders value those people who propose ideas, show initiative, and take responsibility when they see something that needs to be done or a problem that needs to be solved. For example, when the night jan- itor at FAVI, a French copper-alloy foundry, was cleaning one night, the phone rang and she answered it to discover that an important visitor to the company had been delayed and was now waiting at the airport without the promised ride to his hotel. (FAVI’s CEO had left the airport when the visitor didn’t arrive as expected.) The janitor took the keys to one of the company cars, drove 90 min- utes to pick up the visitor and deliver him to his hotel, then went back to finish the cleaning she had interrupted three hours earlier. Although this was nowhere close to being within her official job duties, the employee knew that leaders in the company valued and rewarded people who had the gumption to take responsibility for getting things done.11

2. A Willingness to Collaborate. Leaders are responsible for much more in the organization than any individual follower’s concerns, feelings, and perfor- mance. Each follower is a part of the leader’s larger system and should realize that his or her actions affect the whole. Larry Bossidy, former chairman and CEO of AlliedSignal and of Honeywell, tells about a conflict between the heads of manufacturing and marketing at one organization The two managers didn’t communicate with one another, so inventories were always out of whack. The CEO finally had to fire them both because their refusal to cooperate was hurt- ing the organization. They got their jobs back when they jointly called and said they got the point and would change their behavior.12

3. The Motivation to Stay Up-to-Date. Bosses want followers to know what is hap- pening in the organization’s industry or field of endeavor. In addition, they want people to understand their customers, their competition, and how changes in tech- nology or world events might affect the organization. Most people try to learn all they can in order to get a job, but they sometimes grow complacent and fail to stay current with what’s going on outside the narrow confines of their day-to-day work.

4. The Passion to Drive Your Own Growth. Similarly, leaders want followers who seek to enhance their own growth and development rather than depending solely on the leader to do it. Anything that exposes an individual to new people and ideas can enhance personal and professional development. One example is when followers actively network with others inside and outside the organiza- tion. Another is when followers take on difficult assignments, which demon- strates a willingness to face challenges, stretch their limits, and learn.

198

Despite the importance of followership and the crucial role that followers play in the success of any endeavor, research on the topic is limited. One theory of follow- ership was proposed by Robert E. Kelley, who conducted extensive interviews with leaders and followers and came up with five styles of followership.13 These follow- ership styles are categorized according to two dimensions. The first dimension is the quality of independent, critical thinking versus dependent, uncritical thinking. Critical thinking means approaching subjects, situations, and problems with thoughtful questions and in an unbiased way, gathering and assessing ideas and information objectively, and mentally penetrating into underlying implications of various alter- natives. This recalls our discussion of mindfulness in Chapter 5; independent critical thinkers are mindful of the effects of their and other people’s behavior on achieving organizational goals. They are aware of the significance of their own actions and the actions of others. They can weigh the impact of decisions on the vision set forth by a leader and offer constructive criticism, creativity, and innovation. Con- versely, a dependent, uncritical thinker does not consider possibilities beyond what he or she is told, does not contribute to the cultivation of the organization, and accepts the leader’s ideas without assessing or evaluating them.

According to Kelley, the second dimension of followership style is active versus passive behavior. An active individual participates fully in the organization, engages in behavior that is beyond the limits of the job, demonstrates a sense of ownership, and initiates problem solving and decision making. A passive individual is charac- terized by a need for constant supervision and prodding by superiors. Passivity is often regarded as laziness; a passive person does nothing that is not required and avoids added responsibility.

The extent to which one is active or passive and is a critical, independent thinker or a dependent, uncritical thinker determines whether he or she is an alienated fol- lower, a passive follower, a conformist, a pragmatic survivor, or an effective follower, as shown in Exhibit 7.2.

The alienated follower is an independent, critical thinker but is passive in the organization. Alienated followers are often effective followers who have experi- enced setbacks and obstacles, perhaps promises broken by superiors. Thus, they are capable, but they focus exclusively on the shortcomings of the organization and other people. Often cynical, alienated followers are able to think independently, but they do not participate in developing solutions to the problems or deficiencies they see. For example, Barry Paris spent more than 10 years writing on and off for

Alienated Follower Independent, critical thinker Passive in the organization

Conformist Dependent, uncritical thinker Active in the organization

Pragmatic Survivor Both as needed Both as needed

Passive Follower Dependent, uncritical thinker Passive in the organization

Effective Follower Independent, critical thinker Active in the organization

Source: Based on information in Robert E. Kelley, The Power of Followership (New York: Doubleday,1992)

Critical thinking

thinking independently and

being mindful of the effects

of one’s own and other

people’s behavior on achieving the organization’s

vision

Uncritical thinking

failing to consider possibili-

ties beyond what one is told;

accepting the leader’s ideas without thinking

Alienated follower

a person who is an inde-

pendent, critical thinker but

is passive in the organization.

199

the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, where he was known for his bad attitude and lack of enthusiasm and teamwork. Eventually Paris realized that he wasted that time rumi- nating over what he perceived as the hypocrisy of journalistic objectivity. “I could never resign myself to it,” says Paris. Thus, rather than doing his best and trying to help others maintain standards of integrity and objectivity, he allowed hostility and cynicism to permeate his work.14

The conformist participates actively in the organization but does not utilize criti- cal thinking skills in his or her task behavior. In other words, a conformist typically carries out any and all orders regardless of the nature of those tasks. The conformist participates willingly but without considering the consequences of what he or she is being asked to do—even at the risk of contributing to a harmful endeavor. For exam- ple, the thousands of people who have lost their homes to foreclosure can blame not only top executives in firms like Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and IndyMac Bank who embraced the rampant sale of subprime mortgages (sometimes called liars’ loans) but also many conformist managers and employees who blindly went along with the strategy. In his book The Foreclosure of America, former Countrywide executive Adam Michaelson writes of the groupthink and blind conformity that squelched resistance and led people to go along with company actions even if they thought they were wrong.15 A conformist is concerned only with avoiding conflict. This style often results from rigid rules and authoritarian environments in which leaders per- ceive subordinate recommendations as a challenge or threat.16

The pragmatic survivor has qualities of all four extremes—depending on which style fits with the prevalent situation. This type of follower uses whatever style best benefits his or her own position and minimizes risk. Within any given company, some 25 to 35 percent of followers tend to be pragmatic survivors, avoiding risks and foster- ing the status quo, often for political reasons. Government appointees often demon- strate this followership style because they have their own agendas and a short period of time in which to implement them. They may appeal to the necessary individuals, who themselves have a limited time to accomplish goals and are therefore willing to do whatever is necessary to survive in the short run. Pragmatic survivors also may emerge when an organization is going through desperate times, and followers find themselves doing whatever is needed to get themselves through the difficulty.17

The passive follower exhibits neither critical, independent thinking nor active participation. Being passive and uncritical, these followers display neither initiative nor a sense of responsibility. Their activity is limited to what they are told to do, and they accomplish things only with a great deal of supervision. The assistant manager at one large hotel found herself having to supervise her boss’s daughter, who failed to follow procedures, had to be told over and over when and how to perform tasks, and showed little interest in the job, reflecting the characteristics of a passive follower.18 Passive followers leave the thinking to their leaders. Some- times, however, this style is the result of a leader who expects and encourages pas- sive behavior. Followers learn that to show initiative, accept responsibility, or think creatively is not rewarded and may even be punished by the leader, so they grow increasingly passive. Passive followers are often the result of leaders who are over- controlling of others and who punish mistakes.19

The effective follower is both a critical, independent thinker and active in the organization. Effective followers behave the same toward everyone regardless of their positions in the organization. They do not try to avoid risk or conflict. Rather, effective followers have the courage to initiate change and put themselves at risk or in conflict with others, even their leaders, to serve the best interest of the organization.

NEW LEADER

Complete the questionnaire in

Leader’s Self-Insight 7.1 to

evaluate how well you carry

out a followership role.

Conformist

a follower who participates

actively in the organization

but does not utilize critical thinking skills in his or her

task behavior

Pragmatic survivor

a follower who has qualities

of all four extremes (alien- ated, effective, passive, con-

formist), depending on

which style fits with the

prevalent situation

Passive follower

a person in an organization who exhibits neither critical,

independent thinking nor

active participation

Effective follower

a critical, independent thinker who actively partici-

pates in the organization

200

Characterized by both mindfulness and a willingness to act, effective followers are essential for an organization to be effective. They are capable of self- management, discern strengths and weaknesses in themselves and in the organization, are committed to something bigger than themselves, and work toward competency, solutions, and a positive impact. Dawn Marshall, a cashier at Pathmark, illustrates the characteristics of the effective follower.

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: For each of the following statements, think of a specific situation in which you worked for a boss in an organization. Then answer whether each item is Mostly False or Mostly True for you in that follower situation.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I often commented to my manager on the broader impor- tance of data or events.

2. I thought carefully and then expressed my opinion about critical issues.

3. I frequently suggested ways of improving my and others’ ways of doing things.

4. I challenged my manager to think about an old problem in a new way.

5. Rather than wait to be told, I would figure out the critical activ- ities for achieving my unit’s goals.

6. I independently thought up and championed new ideas to my boss.

7. I tried to solve the tough pro- blems rather than expect my leader to do it.

8. I played devil’s advocate if needed to demonstrate the up- side and downside of initiatives.

9. My work fulfilled a higher personal goal for me.

10. I was enthusiastic about my job. 11. I understood my leader’s

goals and worked hard to meet them.

12. The work I did was significant to me.

13. I felt emotionally engaged throughout a typical day.

14. I had the opportunity to do what I do best each day.

15. I understood how my role contributed to the company’s success.

16. I was willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what was normally expected.

Scoring and Interpretation

Questions 1–8 measure independentthinking.Sum the number of Mostly True answers checked and write your score below.

Questions 9–16 measure active engagement. Sum the number of Mostly True answers checked and write your score below.

Independent Thinking Total Score Active Engagement Total Score These two scores indicate how you carried out your

followership role. A score of 2 or below is considered low. A score of 6 or higher is considered high. A score of 3–5 is in the middle. Based on whether your score is high, middle, or low, assess your followership style below.

Followership

Style

Independent

Thinking Score

Active Engagement

Score

Effective High High Alienated High Low Conformist Low High Pragmatist Middle Middle Passive Low Low

How do you feel about your followership style? Compare your style with that of others in your class. What might you do to be more effective as a follower?

Sources: Based on Douglas R. May, Richard L. Gilson, and Lynn M. Harter, “The Psychological Conditions of Meaningfulness, Safety, and Availability and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work,”

77 (March 2004), pp. 11–38; Robert E. Kelley,

(New York: Doubleday, 1992); and Towers Perrin HR Services, “Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee Engagement,” (2003), www.towersperrin.com.

201

Dawn Marshall, Pathmark Five hours into her shift, four harried customers line up at Dawn Marshall’s cash register

at the Pathmark supermarket in Upper Derby, Pennsylvania. Eight minutes and 27 bags

later, they’re all out the door with smiles on their faces. Few people would think Marshall

has a glamorous or influential job—but she treats it like the most significant job in

the world.

Marshall specializes in giving people a little bit of luxury in the mundane chore of gro-

cery shopping. She’s a good cashier, but her forte is bagging. Marshall knows how to pack

the flimsy plastic bags so that eggs don’t get broken, bread doesn’t get squashed, and

ground beef doesn’t leak all over the cereal boxes. She even won a National Grocers Associ-

ation contest as the best bagger in America, based on speed, bag-building technique, style,

and attitude. “I believe it’s an art that should be taken seriously,” Marshall says of her work.

Many Pathmark customers agree. They’re tired of cashiers and baggers who simply throw

the stuff in bags without giving a care for the customer’s convenience or needs. One cus-

tomer admits that she shops at Pathmark rather than a store closer to her home because

of Marshall. “I like her attitude,” says the customer. “Clone her.”

Even though Marshall works on her feet all day and often has to put up with rude or insen-

sitive customers, she handles whatever comes her way with a positive attitude. For Marshall, her

job is not bagging groceries but making people’s lives easier. Thus, she approaches her work with

energy and enthusiasm, striving to do her best in every encounter. She doesn’t need close super-

vision or someone pushing her to work harder. The busier it is, the better she likes it. 20

Dawn Marshall has taken what some would consider a boring, low-paying job and imbued it with meaning and value. She accepts responsibility for her own per- sonal fulfillment and finds ways to expand her potential and use her capacities to serve the needs of others and the organization. Effective followers like Dawn Marshall also act as leaders by setting an example and using a positive attitude to inspire and uplift other people.

Effective followers are far from powerless—and they know it. Therefore, they do not despair in their positions, nor do they resent or manipulate others. This chapter’s Consider This describes one writer’s meaning of effective followership.

There is growing recognition that how followers manage their leaders is just as important as how their leaders manage them.21 Two aspects of managing up are understanding the leader and using specific tactics to improve the leader–follower relationship.

We all spend time and energy trying to understand people who are important to us, so it only makes sense that you do the same with your boss if you want to have a productive working relationship. It is up to you to take the initiative to learn about your leader’s goals, needs, strengths and weaknesses, and organizational constraints.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can also be an

effective follower. You can think

independently and critically in-

stead of blindly accepting what

your superiors tell you. Rather

than dwelling on the short-

comings of others, you can look

for solutions.

202

In addition, effective followers study their leader’s preferred work style. No two individuals work alike or behave alike under the same circumstances. Effective fol- lowers learn their leader’s preferences and adapt to them. Interviews with senior executives confirm that this strategy is both effective and appropriate for influenc- ing the leader–follower relationship.22 You can pay close attention to the leader’s behavior in the following areas to know how to be a more effective follower:23

Does the leader like to know all the details of your plans, projects, and pro- blems, or does she just want the big picture? Is the leader controlling or empowering? Does he want to closely supervise and be in control of people’s behavior or delegate freely and look for opportunities to help individuals grow and develop to their highest potential? Does the leader like to carefully analyze information and alternatives before mak- ing a decision, or is she more inclined to make quick decisions and take action? Is the leader a reader or a listener? Does he like to have materials presented in written form so he has time to study and analyze them by himself first, or does he prefer an oral presentation where he can ask questions on the spot? Is she a numbers person or a word person? Does she want statistics and figures to back up your report or request? Is the leader an extrovert or an introvert? Do interactions with large groups of people energize or tire him? Does he like to be involved with people all day or need time alone to think and recharge?

Effective followers seek out all the information they can about their leader from talking to the boss, talking to others, and paying attention to clues in the leader’s behavior, so that they are sensitive to the leader’s work style and needs. For example,

Consider

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate, Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you NOT to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure

around you. We were born to make manifest the glory … that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do

the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

Source: From , by Marianne Williamson, pub- lished by HarperCollins.

203

people working with U.S. president Barack Obama have learned that he is an intro- vert who likes to have time to reflect. He prefers to have decision memos, briefing materials, and other items in writing so he can carefully study them and think of questions he wants to ask. Obama likes to consider a lot of information and a variety of opinions before he acts. President George W. Bush, on the other hand, was an extrovert who preferred oral briefings and relatively quick decisions.24

Most followers at some point complain about the leader’s deficiencies, such as a failure to listen, to encourage, or to recognize followers’ efforts.25 Sometimes, though, we need to look in the mirror before blaming our leaders for an unsatisfy- ing or unproductive relationship. To be effective, followers develop a meaningful,

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

1. If you think there might be a mistake in something you’ve done, what do you do? A. Fess up. It’s better to share your concerns up front so

your boss can see if there is a problem and get it corrected before it makes him look bad.

B. Try to hide it for now. Maybe there isn’t really a problem, so there’s no use in making yourself look incompetent.

2. How do you handle a criticism from your boss? A. Poke your head in her door or corner her in the caf-

eteria multiple times to make sure everything is okay between the two of you.

B. Take the constructive criticism, make sure you understand what the boss wants from you, and get on with your job.

3. You’re in a crowded elevator with your boss after an important meeting where you’ve just landed a million- dollar deal. You: A. Celebrate the victory by talking to your boss about

the accomplishment and the details of the meeting. B. Keep your mouth shut or talk about non-business-

related matters. 4. Your boss has an open-door policy and wants people to

feel free to drop by her office any time to talk about anything. You pop in just after lunch and find her on the phone. What do you do? A. Leave and come back later. B. Wait. You know most of her phone calls are quick, so

she’ll be free in a few minutes. 5. You’ve been called to the boss’s office and have no idea

what he wants to talk about. A. You show up on time, empty-handed, to concentrate

on what the boss has to say. B. You show up on time with a pen, paper, and your

calendar or mobile device.

6. You’vebeentryingtogetsome face time withyourboss for weeks and luckily catch him or her in the bathroom. You: A. Take care of personal business and get out of there. B. Grab your chance to schmooze with the boss. Ask a

question or tell a joke. You might not get another chance any time soon.

Here are the appropriate follower behaviors.

1. A. Honest self-assessment and fessing up to the boss builds mutual confidence and respect. Nothing destroys trust faster than incompetence exposed after the fact.

2. B. David Snow, former president and COO of Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, refers to insecure, thin-skinned peo- ple who have to check in frequently after a criticism as

Door swingers are annoying in both our personal and work lives. Just get on with things.

3. B. You have no idea who else is in the elevator. Keep your mouth shut. You can crow about the new deal later in private.

4. A. There’s nothing worse than having someone hovering while you’re trying to carry on a phone conversation. Leave a note with your boss’s assistant or come back later.

5. B. You can usually be safe in assuming your boss hasn’t called you in for idle chitchat. Never show up without a pen and paper or tablet to make notes.

6. A. At best, to use the bathroom as a place to try to impress the boss makes you look desperate. It also shows a lack of tact and judgment.

Most of these seem obvious, but based on interviews with leaders, subordinates commit these mistakes over and over in the workplace. Keep these missteps in mind so you don’t become an annoying follower.

Source: Based on William Speed Weed, Alex Lash, and Constance Loizos, “30 Ways to Annoy Your Boss,” (March–April 2003), pp. 51–55.

204

task-related relationship with their bosses that enables them to add value to the organization even when their ideas disagree with those of the leader.26

Followers should also be aware of behaviors that can annoy leaders and interfere with building a quality relationship. One business magazine interviewed powerful people about their pet peeves and identified more than two dozen misdemeanors that followers often commit without being aware of it.27

Most relationships between leaders and followers are characterized by some emo- tion and behavior based on authority and submission. Leaders are authority figures and may play a disproportionately large role in the mind of a follower.28 Exhibit 7.3 illustrates four tactics that enable followers to overcome the authority-based relation- ship and develop an effective, respectful relationship with their leaders.

Effective followers align themselves with the purpose and the vision of the organization. By understanding the vision and goals, followers can be a resource of strength and support for the leader. An effective follower can com- plement the leader’s weaknesses with the follower’s own strengths.29 Similarly, effective followers indicate their personal goals and the resources they bring to the organization. Effective followers inform their leaders about their own ideas, beliefs, needs, and con- straints. The more leaders and followers can know the day-to-day activities and problems of one another, the better resources they can be for each other. At one

NEW LEADER

Leader’s Self-Insight 7.2 gives

you a chance to see if you’re

guilty of being an annoying

follower.

205

organization, a group of disabled employees took advantage of a board meeting to issue rented wheelchairs to the members, who then tried to move around the factory in them. Realizing what the workers faced, the board got the factory’s ramps improved, and the employees became a better resource for the organization.30

Followers’ influence upon a leader can enhance the leader or accentuate the leader’s shortcomings.31 Good followers seek the lea- der’s counsel and look for ways the leader can help improve their skills, abilities, and value to the organization. They help their leaders be good leaders by simply saying what they need in order to be good followers. If a leader believes a follower values his or her advice, the leader is more likely to give constructive guidance rather than unsympathetic criticism.

A leader can also become a better leader when followers compliment the leader for behavior that followers appreciate, such as listening, rewarding followers’ contribu- tions, and sharing credit for accomplishments.32 In addition, a follower can provide enthusiastic support for a leader, but not to the extent that the follower fails to be can- did with a leader who is unethical or threatens the values or objectives of the organiza- tion. It is in leaders’ best interests when followers help them make needed changes or avoid ethical problems.33 As further described in the Leader’s Bookshelf, good bosses want followers who are willing to provide critical feedback when it is needed.

Effective followers work toward an authentic relationship with their leaders, which includes developing trust and speaking honestly on the basis of that trust.34 By building a relationship with the leader, a follower makes every interaction more meaningful to the organization. Furthermore, the relationship is imbued with mutual respect rather than authority and submission. John Stroup, CEO of Belden Inc., says he learned this in a previous job at Danaher Corporation.

John Stroup, Belden Inc. John Stroup, CEO of Belden Inc., a maker of electrical cables, says he is much more likely to pro-

mote followers who disagree with and challenge him occasionally. However, the key is whether

they have the savvy to do it the right way. In his previous job at Danaher Corporation, Stroup saw

some newly recruited senior managers get fired or transferred because they pushed for changes

or urged their bosses to adopt ideas before they had built credibility with their superiors.

Stroup took the lesson to heart and began building positive and respectful relation-

ships with his immediate supervisor and other top executives. Eventually, he told them he

wanted to make a change in his division by offering certain customers complete solutions

for their specific needs. It was a departure from standard procedures, and it represented a

risky strategic shift for the company. His supervisor disagreed with the decision, but after

hearing Stroup’s arguments, he eventually went along with it because “he recognized my

strengths,” Stroup says. “I felt comfortable enough to push my point of view,” he adds,

because the relationship was one based on trust and mutual respect.

The idea was a huge success, and Stroup was soon promoted to a group executive

position. 35

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can use

strategies for managing up to

create an equitable and re-

spectful relationship with your

superiors. You can help your

supervisor be the best he or she

can be by getting beyond

submissive feelings and beha-

viors, recognizing that leaders

are fallible, and being a re-

source for the leader.

206

Other leaders have also learned that building a positive, respectful relationship with the boss is the best way to get important changes implemented. Followers can generate respect by asking questions about the leader’s experiences in the follower’s position, actively seeking feedback, and clarifying the basis for specific feedback and criticism from the leader. By doing so, followers are getting beyond submissive behavior by asking leaders to be accountable for their criticism, to have empathy for the followers’ position, and to share history about something both parties have in common—the organization.

Unrealistic follower expectations present one of the biggest barriers to effective leader–follower relationships.36 Whereas it is reasonable to expect your superiors to be competent, it is naïve and unrealistic to expect them to be perfect. When we accept that leaders are fallible and will make many mis- takes, we open the path to an equitable relationship. Followers should view leaders as they really are, not as followers think they should be.

Similarly, effective followers present realistic images of themselves. Followers do not try to hide their weaknesses or cover their mistakes, nor do they criticize their leaders to others. Hiding mistakes is symptomatic of conforming or passive followers, and followers who waste their time trashing their superiors or the

Good Boss, Bad Boss: How to Be the Best and Learn from the Worst

by Robert I. Sutton

In , Stanford profes- sor Robert Sutton reminds us of the cost of bad bosses to both followers and organizations. He acknowledges the natural tension that exists between human needs and business results and emphasizes that good bosses take action when a situation becomes unbal- anced. Followers who work for abusive bosses are typically less productive, less satisfied, have more health problems, and make more errors.

WHAT GOOD BOSSES DO

Unfortunately, most people know what it feels like to work for a bad boss. But what characteristics distinguish the good from the bad? Sutton cites research as well as amusing anecdotes from friends, colleagues, and his own experience. Here are some examples of what the best bosses do:

•

“Developing and sustaining self-awareness should be at the top of the list for every boss,” Sutton writes. However, he also says that bosses are

“prone to bouts of cluelessness” and can tend to overestimate their strengths or fail to recognize their weaknesses. Good bosses reduce the riskofself-delusionbyconstantlyseek- ing feedback. They encourage fol- lowers to challenge them, ask tough questions, and keep feeding them information, even if it is unpleasant or unflattering.

•

In a chapter titled “Squelch Your Inner Bosshole,” Sutton warns leaders not to let their organizational power strip them of their humanity and turn them into jerks. Good bosses are never nagging or intimidating.The higher people go, the more they are likelytosuffer from“powerpoisoning,” Sutton says, and become selfish and oblivious to the people around them.

• Good bosses don’t become selfish or obliv- ious. Instead, they are always focused on “controlling their moods and moves, accurately interpreting their impact on others, and making

adjustments on the fly.” In addition, good bosses protect the followers who work for them and make sure followers have the resources, time, and autonomy to do their work effec- tively. A key role of a good boss is to act as a “human shield” and protect people from “meddlesome execu- tives, nosy visitors, unnecessary meetings, and a host of other insults, intrusions, and time wasters.”

CAN WE ALL BE GOOD BOSSES?

Most chapters in include questionnaires that allow readers to apply the concepts to their own lives and leadership. “If you are a boss,” Sut- ton reminds the reader, “your success depends on staying in tune with how others think, feel, and react to you. Bosses who persistently promote perfor- mance and humanity devote consider- able energy to reading and responding to followers’ feelings and actions.”

Source: , by Robert I. Sutton, is published by Business Plus.

207

company intensify estrangement and reinforce the mindset of an alienated follower. These kinds of alienated and passive behaviors can have negative—and sometimes disastrous—consequences for leaders, followers, and the organization. Instead of criticizing a leader to others, it is far more constructive to directly disagree with a leader on matters relevant to the department’s or organization’s work.

There are followers in almost every organization who remind us “how hollow the label of leadership sometimes is—and how heroic followership can be.”37 But standing up to the boss isn’t easy. Finding the courage to effectively manage up comes easier when you realize how much leaders depend on followers.38 It’s a fact that our bosses typically have more power than we do. Yet subordinates have more power than many people realize.

Exhibit 7.4 outlines several sources of power that can be used by followers to man- age up.

One personal source of upward influence is the follower’s knowl- edge and skills that are valuable to the organization. A subordinate with useful knowledge is of real benefit to the leader, and his or her departure would be a loss. In addition, someone who has a demonstrated record of performance often develops expertise and in this way can influence the boss’s decisions. A record of successes and a history of contributions can gain a follower expert status. When someone is recognized as an expert, that person often can influence activities because he or she becomes an indispensable resource to the leader. The power to influence is also associated with the effort followers put forth. By demonstrating a willingness to learn, to accept difficult or undesirable projects, and to initiate activi- ties beyond the scope of expected effort, people can increase their power.39

Another way to influence up with is persuasion, which refers to the direct appeal to leaders for desired outcomes.40 Rational persuasion—using facts and reason—is typically the most effective approach when trying to manage upward. By treating the issue in a business-like manner, formulating a carefully crafted argument and supporting it with details, followers gain attention and respect.41 However, followers can use a variety of influence tactics, depending on their own personalities and styles

Warren Bennis, leadership expert;

author of Still Surprised: A Memoir of a Life

in Leadership

208

and the preferences and style of the leader.42 Chapter 12 will discuss influence tactics in detail.

A follower’s formal position also provides sources of power. For example, certain jobs or physical locations can render the follower visible to numer- ous individuals. A position that is key to the flow of information can establish that position and the person in it as critical—thus, influential—to those who need the information. A central location provides influence because the follower becomes known to many people and contributes to the work of many. Access to people and information in an organization provides a means to establish relationships with a broad range of people both inside and outside the organization. With a network of relationships, followers have more clout with the leader and more opportunity to persuade and make significant contributions.

Some people tend to think, “Who am I to challenge the CEO (or director, or team leader)?” Yet leaders depend on followers who are willing to step up and challenge them when it is in the interest of the organization. Good followers are not yes men (or women). They are people who think for themselves and conduct their work lives with courage and integrity.43 The discussion of courage and integrity in Chapter 6 applies to followers as well as leaders. To be effective, followers have to know what they stand for and be willing to express their own ideas and opinions to their lea- ders, even though this might mean risking their jobs, being demeaned, or feeling inadequate.44 Effective followers have the courage to accept responsibility, chal- lenge authority, participate in change, serve the needs of the organization, and leave the organization when necessary.45

The effective follower feels a sense of per- sonal responsibility and ownership in the organization and its mission. Thus, the follower assumes responsibility for his or her own behavior and its impact on the organization. Effective followers do not presume that a leader or an organization will provide them with security, permission to act, or personal growth. Instead, they initiate the opportunities through which they can achieve personal fulfillment, exercise their potential, and provide the organization with the fullest extent of their capabilities. Emiliana “Millie” Barela has been cleaning rooms for 32 years at Antlers at Vail, a Colorado ski lodge. She takes pride in her work and sees her job as an important part of creating a good experience for guests. Barela takes it upon herself to get to know guests and put their interests and needs first.46

Effective followers do not sacrifice their personal integ- rity or the good of the organization in order to maintain harmony. If a leader’s actions and decisions contradict the best interests of the organization, effective fol- lowers take a stand. Obedience is considered a high virtue in military organizations, for example, but the U.S. Army teaches soldiers that they have a duty to disobey illegal or immoral orders.47 Good leaders want followers who are willing to chal- lenge them for the good of the organization. At Tyco International, which was one of the few large corporations that got caught up in the accounting scandals of the early 2000s and managed to restore its reputation, “the only career-ending move [today] is to not bring bad news forward,” says Laurie Siegel, senior vice president of human resources. It is a guiding principle at Tyco for leaders to surround

NEW LEADER

As a follower, you can assume

responsibility for your own

personal development, behav-

ior, and work performance.

You can look for opportunities

to make a difference, seek to

meet organizational needs,

serve others, and work toward

the common good.

To evaluate

whether you have ever

worked for

a destructive

boss, log in to CengageNOW to complete

the interactive questionnaire.

209

themselves with people who will speak up and hold them accountable. Managers’ leadership behaviors are assessed annually and include an evaluation of whether they are willing to challenge their superiors when necessary.48

Effective followers view the struggle of corporate change and transformation as a mutual experience shared by all mem- bers of the organization. When an organization undergoes a difficult transforma- tion, effective followers support the leader and the organization. They are not afraid to confront the changes and work toward reshaping the organization. David Chislett, of Imperial Oil’s Dartmouth, Nova Scotia refinery, was faced with this test of courage. The refinery was the least efficient in the industry and the board of directors gave management nine months to turn things around. Chislett’s bosses asked him to give up his management position and return to the duties of a wage earner as part of an overall transformation strategy. He agreed to the request, thereby contributing to the success of the refinery’s transformation.49

An effective follower discerns the needs of the organization and actively seeks to serve those needs. Just as leaders can serve others, as discussed in the previous chapter, so can followers. A follower can provide strength to the leader by supporting the leader and by contributing to the organization in areas that complement the leader’s position. By displaying the will to serve others over them- selves, followers act for the common mission of the organization with a passion that equals that of a leader. Laurie Stein, general counsel of Clorox Company, proved her- self to be an exceptional follower after the company hired an outside CEO.

Laurie Stein, Clorox One expert estimates that managers have a 30Ĝpercent to 40Ĝpercent chance of being fired

after a company hires an outside CEO. The best strategy? Make it your job to serve the new

leader and help him or her succeed.

That’s what Laurie Stein, general counsel of Clorox, did. Before Donald Knauss even

took the CEO job, Stein did extensive research on him to help her know how to work with

him most effectively. She learned, for example, that Knauss prefers one-page memos rather

than reams of data and informal interactions rather than formal meetings. In addition, she

began looking for how she could best serve Knauss and the organization as it embarked

on a new path. Even if she disagreed with any strategic changes he wanted to make, Stein

believed it was her job to support them.

Since Stein had previously worked in China, she volunteered to informally advise col-

leagues about revamping the company’s strategy in that country. Knauss appreciated Stein’s

proactive, service-oriented approach. “She will help anyone who asks for help,” he says.

Within months of taking the CEO job, Knauss had broadened Stein’s duties and power. 50

Sometimes organizational or personal changes create a situa- tion in which a follower must withdraw from a particular leader–follower relation- ship. People might know they need new challenges, for example, even though it is

210

hard to leave a job where they have many friends and valued colleagues. If fol- lowers are faced with a leader or an organization unwilling to make necessary changes, it is time to take their support elsewhere. In addition, a follower and leader may have such strong differences of opinion that the follower can no longer support the leader’s decisions and feels a moral obligation to leave. U.S. general John Batiste turned down a promotion and resigned because he felt he could no longer support civilian leaders’ decisions regarding Iraq. The role of military offi- cers is to advise civilian leaders and then carry out orders even when they disagree. General Batiste spent weeks torn between his sense of duty and respect for the chain of command and a feeling that he owed it to his soldiers to speak out against lea- ders’ decisions. Ultimately, believing he could no longer serve his leaders as he should, the general had the courage to leave the job, even though it meant the end of a lifelong career he highly valued.51

Throughout much of this chapter, we’ve talked about demands on followers and how followers can become more effective and powerful in the organization. How- ever, the full responsibility doesn’t fall on the follower. Good followers are created partly by leaders who understand their requirements and obligations for developing people.52

Research indicates that followers have expectations about what constitutes a desirable leader.53 Exhibit 7.5 shows the top four choices in rank order based on surveys of followers about what they desire in leaders and colleagues.

Followers want their leaders to be honest, forward-thinking, inspiring, and competent. A leader must be worthy of trust, envision the future of the organiza- tion, inspire others to contribute, and be capable and effective in matters that will affect the organization.

Followers want their fellow followers to be honest and competent but also dependable and cooperative. Thus, desired qualities of colleagues share two quali- ties with leaders—honesty and competence. However, followers themselves want other followers to be dependable and cooperative rather than forward-thinking and inspiring. The hallmark that distinguishes the role of leadership from the role of followership, then, is not authority, knowledge, power, or other conventional notions of what a follower is not. Rather, the distinction lies in the clearly defined leadership activities of fostering a vision and inspiring others to achieve that vision. Chapter 13 discusses vision in detail, and Chapter 14 describes how leaders shape cultural values that support achievement of the vision.

Honest Honest

Forward-thinking Cooperative

Inspiring Dependable

Competent Competent

Source: Adapted from James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It

(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993), p. 255.

NEW LEADER

As a follower, you can support

your leaders through difficult

times, but have the courage to

challenge your superiors when

their behavior or decisions

contradict the best interests of

the organization.

211

The results in Exhibit 7.5 also underscore the idea that behaviors of effective leaders and followers often overlap. Followers do not want to be subjected to leader behavior that denies them the opportunity to make valued contributions. Leaders have a responsibility to enable followers to fully contribute their ideas and abilities. Four specific ways leaders enhance the abilities and contributions of followers are by offering clarity of direction; providing opportunities for growth; giving honest, constructive feedback; and protecting followers from orga- nizational roadblocks.

It is the leader’s job to clearly communicate where the group or organization is going and why.54 Creating an inspiring vision is only one aspect of setting direc- tion. Followers also need specific, unambiguous goals and objectives on both an individual and team level. Numerous studies have shown that clear, specific, chal- lenging goals enhance people’s motivation and performance.55 Having clear goals helps people know where to focus their attention and energy, enables them to track their own progress, and lets them feel a sense of pride and accomplishment when goals are achieved.

Another aspect of clarifying direction is helping followers see how their own individual jobs fit in the larger context of the team, department, and total enter- prise. This is one reason many leaders use open-book management. When people can see the bigger financial picture, they have a perspective on where the organiza- tion stands and how they can contribute.

Leaders can act as coaches to help followers upgrade their skills and enhance their career development. Leadership coaching is a method of directing or facilitating a follower with the aim of improving specific skills or achieving a specific develop- ment goal, such as developing time management skills, enhancing personal productiv- ity, or preparing for new responsibilities. Coaching doesn’t mean trying to change people and make them something other than what they are. Instead, it means helping followers realize their potential.56

To understand what it means to be a leadership coach, consider the difference in mindset and behavior required for managing versus coaching:

Managing Coaching57

Telling Empowering Judging Facilitating, removing obstacles Controlling Developing

Rather than telling followers what to do, directing and controlling their behavior, and judging their performance, which is a traditional management role, leadership coaching involves empowering followers to explore, helping them understand and learn, providing support, and removing obstacles that stand in the way of their abil- ity to grow and excel.

Exhibit 7.6 shows benefits that followers get from leadership coaching, includ- ing gaining a new perspective, getting advice on handling specific organizational situations, dealing with organizational politics, and receiving encouragement and support. The biggest benefit that followers report, however, is getting clear, direct feedback on performance.58

212

Leadership coaching

a method of directing or

facilitating a follower with the aim of improving specific

skills or achieving a specific

development goal

Candid feedback is one of the most important elements contributing to the growth and development of followers, but many leaders don’t know how to give good feed- back.59 Effective leaders see feedback as a route to improvement and development, not as something to dread or fear. When a leader provides feedback, it signals that the leader cares about the follower’s growth and career development and wants to help the person achieve his or her potential.60

Feedback occurs when a leader uses evaluation and communication to help individuals learn about themselves and improve.61 Effective leaders provide both positive and negative constructive feedback on an ongoing basis. If someone han- dles a difficult task, for instance, the leader offers feedback on the spot rather than letting the person wonder how effective he or she was, perhaps imagining the worst. As former advertising account executive Ryan Broderick said, “hearing something is better than hearing nothing.”62

Followers appreciate positive feedback, but they also want to know when they aren’t doing what is expected of them, and they want the feedback to be specific enough to enable them to do better. Leaders who avoid giving any critical feedback “achieve kindness in the short term but heartlessness in the long run, dooming the problem employee to non-improvement.”63 Here are some ways leaders can provide feedback that benefits followers and takes less of an emotional toll on both leader and follower:64

1. Make it timely. People shouldn’t have to wait for an annual review to know how they’re doing or how they can improve. Leaders should give feedback as soon as possible after they observe a behavior or action they want to correct or reinforce. Often, this means immediately, such as when a leader says, “Great job on the

Source: “The Business Leader as Development Coach,” PDI Portfolio (Winter 1996), p. 6; and Personnel Decisions International,

http://www.personneldecisions.com.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can make

feedback a regular habit and

remember to include positive

comments and praise as well

as critical feedback. As a fol-

lower, you can view feedback

as a chance to improve your-

self. Reframe negative feed-

back in a way that helps you

take positive action toward

what you want out of your

work and life.

213

Feedback

using evaluation and com- munication to help indivi-

duals and the organization

learn and improve

presentation, Sal, and you used graphics very effectively. The only place I see it could have been better would be including some specifics like past sales figures. Do you know where to find that information, or would you like me to set up a meeting with our sales manager?” If leaders wait to offer feedback, it should be only long enough to gather necessary information or to marshal their thoughts and ideas.

2. Focus on the performance, not the person. Feedback should not be used simply to criticize a person or to point out faults. A person who feels like he or she is being attacked personally will not learn anything from the feedback. The focus should always be on how the follower can improve. Leaders have to point out work that is poorly done, but it is equally important to reinforce work that is done well. This helps people learn from what they do right, and softens the impact of negative feedback.

3. Make it specific. Effective feedback describes the precise behavior and its conse- quences and explains why the leader either approves of the behavior or thinks there is a need for improvement. The leader might provide illustrations and examples to clarify what behavior is considered effective, and he or she always checks for under- standing rather than assuming the follower knows what actions the leader wants.

4. Focus on the desired future, not the past. Good leaders don’t drag up the failures and mistakes of the past. In addition, if it is clear that a follower’s mistake was a one-time occurrence and not likely to be repeated, the leader will let it go rather than offering negative feedback. Effective feedback looks toward the future, mini- mizes fault-finding, and describes the desired behaviors and outcomes.

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Think aboutyourattitudetoward personalgrowth and answer the following questions Mostly False or Mostly True.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I have a strong desire to improve myself.

2. I welcome suggestions for better ways of behaving.

3. I am really honest with myself about my strengths and weaknesses.

4. I welcome negative feedback. 5. I follow through on commit-

ments to change myself. 6. I am very open with my peers

about any mistakes I make. 7. I draw my boss’s attention to my

successes. 8. After making a mistake, I immedi-

ately let the affected people know about it and propose a solution.

Scoring and Interpretation

Give yourself 1 point for each Mostly True answer. Total Score . Leadership coaching is one way leaders provide valuable feedback that helps people achieve their potential. The attitude of the follower is equally important to that of the leader for a successful coaching relationship. Your score for this questionnaire pertains to your readiness to receive coachingandfeedbackfromanotherperson. Ifyourscore is6or above, you probably have the correct mindset to benefit from leadership coaching. If your score is 3 or below you may not be receptive to coaching. If you are not open to receiving coaching for yourself, do you think you would be a good coach to others? Would you like to change your coaching mindset? What is the first step you might take?

Source: Based on Susan Battley, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006),

pp. 20–40.

NEW LEADER

Answer the questions in

Leader’s Self-Insight 7.3 to

learn if you have the correct

mindset to benefit from

leadership coaching.

214

Good followers want to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. They don’t want to be continually interrupted by managers offering questions or suggestions, and they don’t want to have to fight against organizational politics, leader uncertainties, or useless procedures. As was described in the Leader’s Bookshelf earlier in this chapter, the best leaders “take pride in being human shields.”65 They stay out of the way so people can do their jobs, and they protect their followers from time wasters such as burdensome organizational practices (think routine reports that no one reads), pushy or critical higher executives, abusive or overly demanding custo- mers or clients, and unnecessary meetings.

Good leaders take the heat so employees don’t have to. One leader at South- west Airlines interrupted a customer who was mistreating a gate agent, told him he wouldn’t allow his employees to be treated that way, and accompanied the customer to another airline’s counter to buy him a ticket. Will Wright, who was responsible for developing the computer games The Sims and Spore, charged his designers a dollar every time they called an unnecessary meeting that wasted artists’ time.66 Leaders invest time and effort into helping their sub- ordinates be good followers. And when people can’t or won’t learn and change, good leaders get rid of the “bad apples” rather than letting them infect the entire team.

Now that you’ve read the chapter, check out how today’s leaders are applying these concepts. LogintoCengageNOW tofollowtheleadersonTwitter.

The important role of followership in organizations is increasingly recognized. Leaders and followers are interdependent, and people are followers more often than leaders. People who effectively manage both up and down the hierarchy are more suc- cessful, but managing up can be difficult for new leaders. Strategies for manag- ing up include being a resource, helping the leader be a good leader, building a relationship with the leader, and viewing the leader realistically. Leaders want followers who are positive and self-motivated, who take action to get things done, who accept responsibility, and who excel at required tasks. An effective follower is both independent and active in the organization. Being an effective follower depends on not becoming alienated, conforming, passive, or a pragmatic survivor. Effective followership is not always easy. Effective followers display the cour- age to assume responsibility, to challenge their leaders, to participate in trans- formation, to serve others, and to leave the organization when necessary. Followers can recognize and rely on several personal and positional sources of power to gain the courage to manage up. Followers want both their leaders and their colleagues to be honest and compe- tent. However, they want their leaders also to be forward-thinking and inspira- tional. The two latter traits distinguish the role of leader from follower. Followers want to be led, not controlled. They also want leaders to create an environment that enables people to contribute their best.

215

Four specific ways leaders enhance the abilities and contributions of followers are by offering clarity of direction, providing opportunities for growth, giving honest, constructive feedback, and protecting followers from organizational intrusions. Followers want feedback that is timely and specific, focuses on performance rather than the person, and focuses on the future rather than dragging up mis- takes of the past.

1. Discuss the role of a follower. Why do you think so little emphasis is given to follower- ship compared to leadership in organizations?

2. As a leader, what would you want most from followers? As a follower, what would you want most from your leader? How do these differ? Why?

3. Compare the alienated follower with the passive follower. Can you give an example of each? Have you ever been either one? How would you respond to each if you were a leader?

4. Why is managing up important in organizations? Describe the strategy for managing up that you most prefer. Explain.

5. The chapter describes five ways in which followers need to use courage. Which do you feel is most important? Least important? How might a follower derive the courage to behave in new ways to be more effective? Discuss.

6. Do you think you would respond better to feedback that is presented using a traditional scheduled performance review format or feedback that is presented as a routine part of everyday work activities? Discuss. How do you think leaders should frame negative feedback to achieve the best results?

7. Which type of follower courage is easiest for you to use? Hardest for you to use? Can you think of ways to expand your power for influencing up?

8. One organizational observer suggested that bosses who won’t give negative feedback to followers who need it cause even more damage in the long run than those who fly off the handle when a follower makes a mistake. Do you agree? Discuss.

9. What does leadership coaching mean to you? How should leaders decide which fol- lowers they will provide with coaching?

10. What does it mean for a leader to act as a human shield? Do you believe this should be part of a leader’s responsibility to followers?

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Follower Role Play You are a production supervisor at Hyperlink Systems. Your plant produces circuit boards that are used in Nokia cell phones and IBM computers. Hyperlink is caught in a competitive pricing squeeze, so senior management hired a consultant to study the production depart- ment. The plant manager, Sue Harris, asked that the consultant’s recommendations be implemented immediately. She thought that total production would increase right away. Weekly production goals were set higher than ever. You don’t think she took into account the time required to learn new procedures, and plant workers are under great pressure. A handful of workers have resisted the new work methods because they can produce more cir- cuit boards using the old methods. Most workers have changed to the new methods, but

216

their productivity has not increased. Even after a month, many workers think the old ways are more efficient, faster, and more productive.

You have a couple of other concerns with Harris. She asked you to attend an operations conference, and at the last minute sent another supervisor instead without any explanation. She has made other promises of supplies and equipment to your section and then has not followed through. You think she acts too quickly without adequate implementation and follow-up.

You report directly to Harris and are thinking about your responsibility as a follower. Write below specifically how you would handle this situation. Will you confront her with the knowledge you have? When and where will you meet with her? What will you say? How will you get her to hear you?

What style—effective, conformist, passive, alienated—best describes your response to this situation? Referring to Exhibit 7.3, which tactic would you like to use to assist Harris?

The instructor can ask students to volunteer to play the role of the plant manager and the production supervisor. A few students can take turns role-playing the production supervisor in front of the class to show different approaches to being a follower. Other stu- dents can be asked to provide feedback on each production supervisor’s effectiveness and on which approach seems more effective for this situation.

Source: Based on K. J. Keleman, J. E. Garcia, and K. J. Lovelace, Management Incidents: Role Plays for Management Development (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 73–75, 83.

Check out CengageNOW for additional cases with interactive activities.

C f i

Waiting for Clearance He wanted the help, but CEO Tony Bussard apparently wanted to relinquish none of the power when he agreed with board members of Alvon Biometrics to maintain control over the financial and administrative side of the company while naming a COO to oversee day- to-day operations.

Everyone agreed that the job was too big for one guy. After months of assessments, interviews, and discussion, Juan Carlos De la Vega was hired as COO for the company.

De la Vega came to Alvon from a smaller rival company and was initially excited about his new position and the future of Alvon. De la Vega trained in military security investiga- tions and became interested in the measuring and statistical analysis of biological data that included fingerprints, eye retinas and irises, voice patterns, and facial patterns that could be used in security systems. He had worked his way up through rival Bi-Tech to a position in middle management and jumped at the opportunity to guide a major company in the field about which he was so passionate. “That is so cool,” was a De la Vega trademark comment as he delighted in the giant leaps of each system’s gadgetry.

But De la Vega’s exciting new position came with its own set of frustrations as he tried to plunge into the rapidly changing technology while simultaneously fitting into the organi- zation and tip-toeing around Tony Bussard’s ego.

217

Bussard welcomed De la Vega with the gusto of an under-fire field officer who looks up to see reinforcements riding into the fray. He enthusiastically introduced the new COO to everyone and raved, almost to the point of embarrassment, about De la Vega’s experience and level of expertise in the field of biometrics.

“You’ve made my job a whole lot easier,” Bussard gushed. “We’re all thrilled to have you.” Now, one year into the job, De la Vega was still wondering what was expected of him

and where Bussard’s duties ended and his duties began. Those things were never actually spelled out in an agreement, and the boundaries remained vague and confusing. Even during the initial job interviews, Bussard and board members showed great interest in De la Vega’s background and talked endlessly about Bussard’s vision for the future. But now, in retro- spect, the COO realized that there was little or no discussion of his vision or any mention about how he would fit into the future being laid out for him.

With no clear agreement, De la Vega’s earnest efforts to get guidance about his respon- sibilities seemed to be brushed aside by the CEO, who remained elusive and vague.

“If he tells me one more time, ‘Yeah, yeah, we’ll talk,’ I think I will scream,” De la Vega complained. “I want to feel like a COO, not a sidekick to the CEO. At the same time, I don’t want to push so hard that Bussard and the board members become concerned that they made a mistake in selecting me.”

The confusion about De la Vega’s role also filtered down the ranks. Employees, expect- ing initiative from De la Vega, remained uncertain about his range of responsibilities. People looked almost exclusively to Bussard for direction, by-passing the new COO. Workers liked De la Vega and admired his industry experience. However, old habits die hard, and the habit of yielding to Bussard’s leadership remained intact. Even one year later, employees were reluctant to take a chance on angering Bussard by shifting even a portion of their attention and allegiance to De la Vega.

For his part, De la Vega knew the time for clarity was now, but he hesitated, not know- ing exactly how or when to approach the CEO from a position of strength.

QUESTIONS

1. If you were De la Vega, what would you do at this point? Do you think De la Vega has waited too long to make a substantial change in his relationship with Bussard? Why?

2. How would you characterize De la Vega’s style as a follower? What tactics might help improve his relationship with Bussard? Explain.

3. If you were in De la Vega’s position, what would you have done from the beginning? Be specific about your actions and timing.

Jake’s Pet Land Adam Gerrit glanced up from the cash register as his first customers of the day walked into Jake’s Pet Land, a neighborhood pet store that is part of a small, regional chain. A young boy, obviously distraught, reluctantly placed a shoebox on the counter. “We have a problem,” whispered the boy’s dad, “and I would like to get a refund.” Cautiously, Adam lifted the lid of the shoebox and found an ebony-colored chinchilla hunched in the corner of the box, huddled in wood chips and barely breathing. Normally inquisitive and active, the chinchilla was obviously sick. The boy’s father, a loyal customer for several years, handed Adam a receipt. Adam knew the refund policy by heart: “The health of exotic animals is guaranteed for seven days after purchase. No refunds are granted after seven days.” The chinchilla had been purchased 10 days ago, but Adam, as a long-time employee, knew his manager would agree to bend the rules in this case and grant this cus- tomer a full refund. Putting the policy manual out of his mind, Adam handed the cus- tomer a full refund of $125, saying to the distraught boy, “I’m sorry your little buddy

218

didn’t make it. Would you like to look for another pet?” Although he had clearly stretched the return policy rules, Adam felt confident that his store manager, Phillip Jordan, would support his decision.

Jordan did support Adam’s decision to bend company rules if it meant retaining a loyal customer. Although the store’s thick policy manual called for strict adherence to established procedures, Jordan encouraged employees to think independently when meet- ing the needs of customers. Jordan also felt strongly about building camaraderie among his small staff, even if it meant straying outside the edicts in the policy manual. For exam- ple, Jordan bought the entire staff pizza and soft drinks as a reward for their cheerful atti- tude when asked to stay late to clean out the stockroom after the store closed. While they restocked shelves and mopped the stockroom floor, his employees told stories, traded jokes, and enjoyed helping each other complete the job quickly. Jordan was proud of the productive yet friendly culture he had created, even if his district manager would frown on some of his decisions.

Without surprise, Jordan’s store steadily increased revenue, up 5 4 percent from the previous year. Employees were motivated and enthusiastic. One factor contributing to the store’s success was low employee turnover. Again setting company policy aside, Jordan retained his employees by offering slightly higher wages, granting small promotions with increased responsibilities, and rewarding “VIP” employees with free passes to a local theme park. Since all of the employees were pet owners, he also allowed employees to take home overstocked pet supplies and free samples of new pet foods. This loyalty to employees resulted in a successful store. But Jordan knew his district manager would abruptly end all of these practices if he knew about them, so Jordan learned to keep guarded secrets.

Trouble began when Jordan was transferred to another store, closer to his home, and a new manager with a completely different managerial style was brought in. Wedded to rules and procedures, Jan Whitall was driven by order and discipline. On Whitall’s first day on the job, she set the tone for her tenure with this announcement: “The company’s new com- pensation policy will be strictly followed in this store, and some of you will have your pay reduced to adhere to the new pay scales. This is uncomfortable for me, but it’s the result of some questionable decisions by your previous manager.” The morale of top performers, including Adam, plummeted. By the end of Whitall’s first month, she had fired an employee for violating the store’s return policy. The employee had granted a full refund for a ball python after the seven-day return period. Another employee was publicly reprimanded for giving a customer a sample of a new organic pet food to try before purchasing it. Stunned by these actions, employees became indignant and bristled under her tight authority. The friendly, warm culture had vanished. Adam Gerrit confided to his coworker, “I’ve applied for a position at the pet superstore down the road. Before I resign, I’m going to talk to Jan and see if she can lighten up on the rules.”

Mustering his courage, Adam tapped on Whitall’s office door and asked if he could talk with her. Putting down her reading glasses and pushing away the financial reports in front of her, Whitall motioned for him to sit down. “I’m worried about morale around here,” Adam began. “Some of our best workers are leaving and I’m considering it, too. Under our previ- ous manager, I loved coming to work and enjoyed the friendship of coworkers and custo- mers. Now, everyone is in a sour mood and we’ve lost some customers.” Taking a deep breath, he continued. “If you are willing to be more flexible with the company policies, I would be willing to stay.” Unflustered, Whitall kept her firm stance. “Adam,” she explained, “I’m responsible to the district manager, who long suspected that the previous manager wasn’t adhering to company policies. It’s my intention to do my job the way I’ve been instructed, and I’m sorry to hear you will be leaving.”

As Adam left her office with his head down, Whitall mused to herself that the district man- ager would be proud of her ability to stand firm. In fact, he had recently complimented her on her approach. Neither realized that sales would take a surprising dip in the next quarter.

219

QUESTIONS

1. Which store manager—Phillip Jordan or Jan Whitall—would you prefer working for? How did each leader’s style affect the culture of the pet store? Explain.

2. What kind of follower was Adam Gerrit? In general, what characteristics of followers do you admire? What characteristics would you want them to display when working for you?

3. If you were the district manager, which store manager would you prefer to have work- ing for you? Why? In your opinion, which manager did a better job of managing up? Which manager did a better job of managing down?

1. Based on a story in Marc Hurwitz and Samantha Hurwitz, “The Romance of the Follower: Part 1,” Industrial and Commercial Training 41, no. 2 (2009), pp. 80–86.

2. Ibid.

3. Robin Sronce and Lucy A. Arendt, “Demonstrating the Interplay of Leaders and Followers,” Journal of Management Education 33, no. 6 (December 2009), pp. 699–724; Hurwitz and Hurwitz, “The Romance of the Follower: Part 1”; and Marc Hurwitz and Samantha Hurwitz, “The Romance of the Follower: Part 2,” Industrial and Commercial Training 41, no. 4 (2009), pp. 199–206.

4. Warren Bennis, “Art of Followership: Followers Engage in an Interdependent Dance,” Leadership Excellence (January 2010), pp. 3–4; and Robert E. Kelley, “In Praise of Followers,” Harvard Business Review (November/December 1988), pp. 142–148.

5. John G. Gabarro and John P. Kotter, “Managing Your Boss,” Best of HBR 1980, Harvard Business Review (January 2005), http://hbr.org /2005/01/managing-your-boss/ar/1 (accessed April 18, 2011).

6. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Power Failure in Management Circuits,” Harvard Business Review 57 (July–August, 1979), pp. 65–75.

7. Ronald J. DeLuga, “Kissing Up to the Boss: What It Is and What to Do about It,” Business Forum 26 (2003), pp. 14–18; and Bennett Tepper, “Upward Maintenance Tactics in Supervisory Mentoring and Nonmentoring Relationships,” Academy of Management Journal 38, no. 4 (1995), pp. 1191–1205.

8. Liz Simpson, “Why Managing Up Matters,” Harvard Management Update (August 2002), pp. 3–5; and Stanley Bing, Throwing the Elephant (New York: HarperCollins, 2002).

9. Irvin D. Yalom,with Ben Yalom, “Mad about Me,” Inc. (December 1998), pp. 37–38; and story told in Robert McGarvey, “And You Thought Your Boss Was Bad,” American Way (May 1, 2006), pp. 69–74.

10. These are based on Larry Bossidy, “What Your Leader Expects of You and What You Should Expect,” Leadership Excellence (February 2008), p. 6; Larry Bossidy, “What Your Leader Expects of You,” Harvard Business Review (April 2007), pp. 58–65; and Peter F. Drucker, “Drucker on Management: Managing the Boss,” The Wall Street Journal (August 1, 1986).

11. Vignette recounted in Isaac Getz, “Liberating Leadership: How the Initiative-Freeing Radical Organizational Form Has Been Successfully Adopted,” California Management Review (Summer 2009), pp. 32–58.

12. Bossidy, “What Your Leader Expects of You.”

13. Robert E. Kelley, The Power of Followership (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

14. Ibid.

15. Discussed in Michael G. Winston, “Say No to Yes Men,” Leadership Excellence (November 2010), p. 15.

16. Kelley, The Power of Followership, pp. 111–112.

17. Ibid. pp. 111–112, 117–118.

18. Based on an incident reported in “Ask Inc.,” Inc. (March 2007), pp. 81–82.

19. Kelley, The Power of Followership, p. 123.

20. Melanie Trottman, “Baggers Get the Sack, but Dawn Marshall Still Excels as One,” The Wall Street Journal (May 2, 2003), pp. A1, A6.

21. Bennis, “Art of Followership”; Sronce and Arendt, “Demonstrating the Interplay of Leaders and Followers”; Marshall Goldsmith, “Influencing Up: You Make a Difference,” Leadership Excellence (January 2008), pp. 5–6; David K. Hurst, “How to Manage Your Boss,” Strategy + Business no. 28 (Third Quarter 2002), pp. 99–103; Joseph L. Badaracco Jr., Leading Quietly: An Unorthodox Guide to Doing the Right Thing (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002); and Michael Useem, Leading Up: How to Lead Your Boss So You Both Win (New York: Crown Business, 2001).

22. Hurwitz and Hurwitz, “The Romance of the Follower: Part 1.”

23. Based on Jo Owen, “Manage Your Boss,” Industrial and Commercial Training 39, no. 2 (2007), pp. 79–84.

24. Ryan Lizza, “The Political Scene: The Obama Memos,” The New Yorker (January 30, 2012), pp. 36–49; Peter Baker, “How Obama’s Afghanistan War Plan Came to Be,” International Herald Tribune (December 7, 2009); and Ron Walters, “Afghanistan: The Big Decision,” The Washington Informer (December 10–16, 2009).

25. Len Schlesinger, “It Doesn’t Take a Wizard to Build a Better Boss,” Fast Company (June/July 1996), pp. 102–107.

26. Ira Ira Chaleff, “Courageous Followers: Should We Stand Up To or For Leaders?” Leadership Excellence (April 2011), p. 19; and Hurst, “How to Manage Your Boss.”

27. William Speed Weed, Alex Lash, and Constance Loizos, “30 Ways to Annoy Your Boss,” MBA Jungle (March–April 2003), pp. 51–55.

28. Judith Sills, “When You’re Smarter Than Your Boss,” Psychology Today (May–June 2006), pp. 58–59; Sarah Kershaw, “My Other Family Is the Office,” The New York Times (December 4, 2008), p. E1; and Frank Pittman, “How to Manage Mom and Dad,” Psychology Today (November/December 1994), pp. 44–74.

29. Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1995); and John J. Gabarro and John P. Kotter, “Managing Your Boss,” Harvard Business Review, “Best of HBR” (January 2005), pp. 92–99.

30. Example from Christopher Hegarty, How to Manage Your Boss (New York: Ballantine, 1985), p. 147.

220

31. Chaleff, Courageous Followers.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.; and Ira Chaleff, “Learn the Art of Followership,” Government Executive (February 1997), p. 51.

34. Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders.

35. Joann S. Lublin, “Arguing with the Boss: A Winning Career Strategy,” The Wall Street Journal (August 9, 2012), http://online.wsj.com/article /SB10000872396390443991704577579201122821724.html (accessed April 9, 2013).

36. This is based on Goldsmith, “Influencing Up: You Make a Difference” and Hegarty, How to Manage Your Boss.

37. Warren Bennis, “Art of Followership: Followers Engage in an Interdependent Dance,” Leadership Excellence (January 2010), pp. 3–4.

38. Gabarro and Kotter, “Managing Your Boss.”

39. Peter Moroz and Brian H. Kleiner, “Playing Hardball in Business Organizations,” Industrial Management (January/February 1994), pp. 9–11.

40. Warren Keith Schilit and Edwin A. Locke, “A Study of Upward Influence in Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (1982), pp. 304–316.

41. Mary C. Gentile, “Keeping Your Colleagues Honest,” Harvard Business Review (March 2010), pp. 114–117; and Goldsmith, “Influencing Up: You Make a Difference.”

42. Deepti Bhatnagar, “Evaluation of Managerial Influence Tactics,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 8, no. 1 (1993), pp. 3–9; and Daniel M. Cable and Timothy A. Judge, “Managers’ Upward Influence Tactic Strategies: The Role of Manager Personality and Supervisor Leadership Style,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (2003), pp. 197–214.

43. Winston, “Say No to Yes Men.”

44. David N. Berg, “Resurrecting the Muse: Followership in Organiza- tions,” presented at the 1996 International Society for the Psycho- analytic Study of Organizations (ISPSO) Symposium, New York, NY, June 14–16, 1996.

45. Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders.

46. Reported in Del Jones, “What Do These 3 Photos Have in Common? They Show Leaders and Their Followers, Winning Combos,” USA Today (December 10, 2003), p. 1B.

47. Major (General Staff) Dr. Ulrich F. Zwygart, “How Much Obedience Does an Officer Need? Beck, Tresckow, and Stauffenberg—Examples of Integrity and Moral Courage for Today’s Officer,” Combat Studies Institute; U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/download/csipubs /ObedienceOfficerNeed_Zwygart.pdf (accessed June 11, 2013).

48. “Ethics Lessons from Tyco for Today’s Financial Crisis,” a talk given by Eric Pillmore at Thunderbird School of Global Management, October 28, 2008, http://knowledgenetwork.thunderbird .edu/research/2008/10/30/takeaways-from-tyco-for-today%E2% 80%99s-financial-crisis/ (accessed April 10, 2013); and Lublin, “Arguing with the Boss: A Winning Career Strategy.”

49. Merle MacIsaac, “Born Again Basket Case,” Canadian Business (May 1993), pp. 38–44.

50. Joann S. Lublin, “How to Prove You’re Keeper to a New CEO,” The Wall Street Journal (March 8, 2013), p. B8.

51. Greg Jaffe, “The Two-Star Rebel: For Gen. Batiste, a Tour in Iraq Turned a Loyal Soldier into Rumsfeld’s Most Unexpected Critic,” The Wall Street Journal (May 13, 2006), p. A1.

52. Berg, “Resurrecting the Muse.”

53. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1993).

54. This section is based largely on Bossidy, “What Your Leader Expects of You.”

55. See Gary P. Latham and Edwin A. Locke, “Enhancing the Benefits and Overcoming the Pitfalls of Goal Setting,” Organizational Dynamics 35, no. 4 (2006), pp. 332–338; Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey,” The American Psychol- ogist 57, no. 9 (September 2002), p. 705ff.; Gary P. Latham and Edwin A. Locke, “Self-Regulation through Goal Setting,” Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, no. 2 (1991), pp. 212–247; G. P. Latham and G. H. Seijts, “The Effects of Proximal and Distal Goals on Performance of a Moderately Complex Task,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, no. 4 (1999), pp. 421–428; P. C. Early, T. Connolly, and G. Ekegren, “Goals, Strategy Development, and Task Performance: Some Limits on the Efficacy of Goal Setting,” Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1989), pp. 24–33; and E. A. Locke, “Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3 (1968), pp. 157–189.

56. Patrick Sweeney, “Developing Leadership Potential through Coach- ing,” Chief Learning Officer (March 2009), p. 22ff.

57. This table and the discussion are based on Andrea D. Ellinger and Robert P. Bostrom, “An Examination of Managers’ Beliefs about Their Roles as Facilitators of Learning,” Management Learning 33, no. 2 (2002), pp. 147–179.

58. “The Business Leader as Development Coach,” PDI Portfolio (Winter 1996), p. 6; and Personnel Decisions International, http://www .personneldecisions.com (accessed May 3, 2009).

59. McKinsey & Company’s War for Talent 2000 Survey, reported in E. Michaels, H. Handfield-Jones, and B. Axelrod, The War for Talent (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001), p. 100; and Mark D. Cannon and Robert Witherspoon, “Actionable Feedback: Unlocking the Power of Learning and Performance Improvement,” Academy of Management Executive 19, no. 2 (2005), pp. 120–134.

60. Jay M. Jackman and Myra H. Strober, “Fear of Feedback,” Harvard Business Review (April 2003), pp. 101–108; and Bossidy, “What Your Leader Expects of You.”

61. John C. Kunich and Richard I. Lester, “Leadership and the Art of Feedback: Feeding the Hands That Back Us,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 3, no. 4 (1996), pp. 3–22.

62. Broderick quote is from Jared Sandberg, “Avoiding Conflicts, the Too-Nice Boss Makes Matters Worse,” The Wall Street Journal (February 26, 2008), p. B1.

63. Sandberg, “Avoiding Conflicts.”

64. Based on “Closing Gaps and Improving Performance: The Basics of Coaching,” excerpt, originally published as Chapter 4 of Performance Management: Measure and Improve the Effectiveness of Your Employees (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2006).

65. This section is based on Robert I. Sutton, “The Boss as a Human Shield,” Harvard Business Review (September 2010), pp. 106–109.

66. These examples are from Sutton, “The Boss as Human Shield.”

221