Reflection on Leadership

Over the years I have greatly increased my leadership skills. And, over this same time frame I’ve been better able to adapt my style to the many styles I often deal with. After so many years you begin to learn about yourself, and about how you interact with others and how they perceive you. The Insights Profile has reaffirmed my leader style and helped reinforce areas where improvement is needed.

Since I have been in many varying leadership situations I’ve learned to switch styles. At times, and unfortunately so, I can use a coercive style, but I don’t often employ this style. As necessary, I will use an authoritative approach but try to avoid this as with the coercive approach. In all of my positions I’ve tried to be a developer of others, a coach and mentor.

For me there are six key leadership rules or principles to be employed and regardless of leadership style:

1. Take time out to reflect on your daily actions and behaviors. Reflection helps to put things in perspective, and heightens the learning process.

2. Trade minds with people you want to influence. Try to get into their head to better understand them.

3. Think progress, push for progress, and also believe in progress. Change is not only inevitable but it is desired.

4. When making decisions, make them as quickly as possible. As one CEO often told me: “There’s not a decision that you make that can’t be quickly changed.” He was absolutely right.

5. Learn from everyone around you. Don’t repeat your mistakes or the mistakes of others.

6. Apply continuous active learning. Make sure your Barnes & Noble member card is renewed and used often. Get the latest books published in management, leadership, ethics, and business processes. Subscribe to the HBR and as many trade publications as possible.

The above six practices will help a leader to identify his or her style and adapt it as necessary.

More on Henry Tam

As I continue to review the Henry Tam case I discovered a wonderful article written by Beck and Yeager. According to the authors teams pass through various stages on their way to productivity: forming, focusing, performing, and leveling. Forming is basically team members meeting and greeting. To work well, the team should clarify its work and establish rules for how the team will function. In focusing, the teams formulate and clarify goals and objectives. This phase can be a short phase if a clear purpose is provided through leadership. Once everyone knows what is to be accomplished the team moves to performing. In performing, the work is divided and team members begin. It is here that Beck and Yeager make an important point, namely that much teamwork is not performed as a team. Much is done by individuals and then combined with the work of others, and in a non-collaborative manner. Without regular meetings to keep team members focused on goals, to check progress, and solve problems, inertia may set in a leveling stage. Leveling occurs when efforts stagnate. Clearly, in my mind the MGI team has hit its inertia and is in the leveling stage simply because the team bypassed the focusing stage. Leadership is needed to guide the team through focusing.

My Insights Discovery Profile- Work In Progress

The Insights Discovery Profile is a self-development tool based Carl Jung’s concept of psychological type. It is somewhat similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and even the Harrison Innerview, other self-development tools that rely on identifying certain psychological and personality differences. With each tool a person’s responses to a simple questionnaire generates the data that is central to a final report, identifying the person’s strengths and weaknesses. However, unlike other profiles that simply present valuable information, the Insights profile is accompanied by a “How To” system to put action in place.

The Insights Discovery Personal Profile includes: An Overview; Key strengths and weaknesses; Value to the Team; Effective Communication; Barriers to Effective Communication; Possible Blind Spots; and Suggestions for Development.

I’ve been fortunate to now experience each tool and am most impressed with the Insights Discovery Profile. As I review my report I want to focus on what I view to be my three strengths, weaknesses, blind spots, and suggestions for developments.

Key Strengths:

Of ten key strengths identified, the 3 that ring true to me are objectivity, an orderly approach to the task, and consistency in standards. Now, all ten strengths clearly help to identify me as an HR person, but the three I want to focus on truly represent my behavior. As an HR professional I must be objective in my decisions and consistent in standards and application of those standards. Further, I am very organized and plan out my tasks.

Key Weaknesses:

Of ten key weaknesses identified, the 3 that ring true to me are tends to avoid social interaction, others may find me cold and distant, and could appear too unemotional or uninvolved. For me the noted weaknesses are an outgrowth of my work place behavior, a conscience effort on my part to keep my interactions with employees professional in an effort to maintain fairness and objectivity. Is this an extreme condition? Perhaps. Does this mean that I am unfriendly or aloof? No. It simply means I am careful with the level of interpersonal relationships I have with individuals.

Blind Spots:

According to the Insights Discovery Profile “blind spots” reflect less conscious behaviors a person may project that affect how others perceive that person. For me there are three blind spots, those less conscious behaviors I need to focus on. They are: neglect to involve others in my activities, does not openly share thoughts and feelings with others, not open to the ideas from others.

Suggestions for Development:

My Insights Discovery Profile reveals ten suggestions for development. For me, each is important and I want to address each individually. By doing so I can develop an action plan for improvement. Here is my list of ten suggestions for development:

• Greater interaction with all sorts of people.
• Trusting his feelings more.
• Identifying when extensive detail is not needed.
• Paying attention to people who are unafraid to put their foot in their mouths, rather than “tuning out”.
• Seeking the positive side of every situation.
• Taking the occasional risk by deciding only on the information available. It may be better to make a poor decision than no decision at all.
• Changing his perception of aggression being a weakness to that of an essential gift that is occasionally necessary to get things done.
• Engaging excitedly in general discussion.
• Attempting to respond more quickly to his more extraverted colleagues.
• Sharing responsibilities or processes.

My next step is to develop self-directed learning plan based on the above areas. A self-directed learning plan should include 1) identifying learning needs, 2) establishing specific learning objectives, 3) identifying learning resources, and 4) documenting measurable outcomes and evaluating those outcomes.

I will research the text For Your Improvement and identify those clusters that relate to these areas as a starting point.

Henry Tam and the MGI Team

Henry Tam is a student looking for a challenge and jumps right into one when he decides to assist MGI ownership as part of a school competition. MGI is a small entity led by three unique individuals two of which are considered accomplished composers. The third person is relied upon by the other two for his business savvy. As Henry’s involvement unfolds and as other students join the MGI team, Henry becomes embroiled in many concepts regarding leadership and teams.

To fully understand what Henry faces, let’s start at the end of the case study where Henry asks himself what he can do to help the team work more effectively. Henry’s dilemma haunts him throughout the case study as the team’s dysfunctional behavior slowly reveals itself.

For me the answer to MGI’s woes is a simple one, yet one that surprisingly evades two of MGI’s leaders, those who are familiar with musicians and composers. What MGI needs is a person who can orchestrate success, a conductor of sorts, a person who can provide strategic direction and like a conductor of a great orchestra get all the parts working together (the creative and the strategic), a person who can work with each person’s strengths and build on their weaknesses.

As the case unfolds, here is what we learn:

> MGI’s core leadership (Sasha, Igor, Roman) is comprised of diverse talents and viewpoints. Igor and Roman are known as accomplished musicians and composers; Sasha is a college graduate with business acumen and finance skills.

> MGI’s product is a software program where through game play the user can both learn and enjoy music. This presents a conflict. MGI’s core leaders believe the software program should be marketed as a game; the student team believes it should be marketed as an education tool.

> MGI’s product is a critical success but a commercial failure, most likely because it missed the Christmas holiday season. Two MGI core leaders who are musicians (Igor and Roman) place this failure at the feet of their business leader Sasha. They believe the problem was that Sasha did not focus on sales, but rather production and fund raising efforts.

> The group dynamic between MGI’s core leaders presents challenges: Igor and Roman have the same upbringing in the Ukraine; Sasha was born in Russia but is viewed as “Americanized” by Igor and Roman as he often refuses to speak in his native tongue; Sasha is also viewed by Igor and Roman as being key to MGI because of his business skills; Igor and Roman are viewed as having poor business skills; Roman is considered the creative person who has the ideas; Igor is considered a workaholic.

> Regardless of how MGI’s core leaders view each other Sasha believes that the group lacks the skills necessary to thrive in the industry. For Sasha they do not have the skill set to properly market their product.

> Much of this is reaffirmed when Henry joins the team as part of his school’s business competition. Yet Henry begins to see some things differently light than MGI’s core leaders. For example, he views Igor as someone who possesses great charisma, but is incapable of articulating anything to do with the business.

> The student team (Henry, Dana, Dav), brought together for the competition, presents yet another level of diverse talents and viewpoints. Henry is an MBA candidate with professional experience in the investment field; Dana is also an MBA candidate with professional experience in the banking; Dav (who joins the team later) is an MIT graduate student with experience in software development and music.

> As the student team meets with MGI’s core leaders they begin to formulate opinions based on observation. Dana discovers that Igor is experienced with teaching children; Henry and Dana are concerned with Sasha’s resume as he has jumped form industry-to-industry with limited accomplishments; Henry and Dana reaffirm their initial belief when they first meet with Sasha as Sasha seems unfocused and jumps from idea to idea.

> Henry and Dana want to establish their specific roles. They see themselves as developing a business plan. However, Igor is looking for a vision and strategy, while Sasha looks to the students as salespeople who can cold call on alumni for financial support.

> As the student team attempts to define their role Sasha and Dana find themselves in conflict over roles and expectations. The conflict is noticed by Henry and Igor, and Igor steps in to resolve the issue. Sasha views the students as learners and helpers while Igor views the student team as critical to MGI’s success.

> As the group continues to meet a new student is added to the team. His name is Alex and he is a music student and is invited to join the team by Igor and Sasha.

> Alex’s music background and expertise is unique. He has worked with MGI’s core leaders in the past. Alex believes the MGI’s software product is a smart way to teach music. From a management and leadership perspective Alex believes MGI lacks organization.

> Several perspectives come from a second meeting. Dana firmly believes leadership is needed as MGI’s core leaders have limited experience. Roman believes Dana takes a very broad view of things, that Sasha also views Dana this way, and that Dana believes Sasha simply as a salesperson. Dana believes the group focuses too much time on brainstorming. Sasha admits he has limited interpersonal communication skills, and this is exemplified by his attempts at suppressing Dana’s ideas. Alex views Sasha as aggressive and strong-willed.

> At the end of the second meeting Henry and David agree that they 1) need to take control of the situation in order to be successful, and 2) have to deal directly with Sasha. Henry and Dana agree to use Sasha’s conflict with Dana to their advantage. Henry and Dana’s plan is simple: Dana will present an idea knowing Sasha will disagree. Then, Henry will propose an alternative that Henry and Dana really want. Sasha will agree to Henry’s idea and simply to spite Dana.

> A third student is introduced at a third meeting. Dav is an MIT student with software development skills. He represents MGI in an MIT business competition. Henry and Dana are troubled by Dav’s introduction, and the fact that Dav was recruited by Sasha and just two days before MIT’s online application deadline.

> Dav spends a lot of time with Sasha and Igor and helps to get a rough draft of the business plan’s Executive Summary ready for submission. Dav also reviews the software program and believes it is excellent and more suited as a game than educational tool.

> Dav also spends additional time with Sasha and Igor and helps with technical aspects of their product. As Dav spends more time with MGI he believes his style is compatible with the MGI core leaders. He feels comfortable with the core leadership because he is not aggressive in a group setting.

> At a third meeting, Henry and Dana present a very professionally PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the work completed to date. The presentation impresses Igor and Roman. On the other hand, Sasha’s presentation is very basic and not electronic. Sasha expresses frustration as he feels he is being alienated by the group.

> At this meeting Dav makes a few observations. Dav feels there is conflict between the HBS students and MGI’s core leadership. Roman is disagreeable; Sasha and Igor believe there are too many people involved.

> Dav also notes cultural differences that impact the groups’ synergy, and uses stereotypes as a basis. According to Dav, Sasha is stubborn while Roman is less stubborn and gives reluctantly.

> Alex is less convinced of the cultural differences noted by Dav. For Alex, he views the differences simply as people wanting to be thorough, and coming from different experiences and skill levels.

> Alex views himself as a go-between, someone with similar skill sets to Roman and Igor, but someone close to Henry and Dana’s age. Alex views the major difference or point of conflict as that between the creativity of Roman and Igor and business sense of Henry and Dana. Dana agrees with this perspective.

> As the group moves ahead the conflict boils down to how to best market MGI’s product. Henry does a lot of market research and believes the product should be marketed to teachers and education market. Dana agrees with this perspective. Roman disagrees and states that the education market is small compared to the music industry. Sasha states that it would be a failure to focus on the education market because MGI has neither the experience nor interest to do so. Henry counters that in fact the education market is indeed smaller but it best suits where MGI’s product is in development. Dana adds a critical perspective by noting that MGI should take a short term and long term viewpoint. MGI’s core leadership begin to gain respect for Henry and Dana.

> As the group progresses, however, Henry and Dana find no clear leader. For Henry the leader was that person who at the time had the most energy to give to an issue.

Yet, the question remains – how can Henry help MGI be successful with so many varied challenges? For me, I believe Henry needs to direct MGI to find a conductor, a person who can direct activities and weave the diverse personalities together towards a set of common goals. Based on my experience, this is a person who can:

> Communicate a compelling vision and inspire allegiance to this vision.

> Walk the talk – a person who practices what s/he preaches, all the time, and regardless of conditions.

> Infuse an attitude of trust, integrity, and professionalism to the work place.

> Motivate teams to reach for goals; find ways for teams to experience success and gain a passion for being successful.

> Communicate and coordinate efforts to ensure effective implementation of programs that are needed and wanted by members.

> Help members to rise above weaknesses and to make full use of their capabilities.

> Encourage an attitude of lifelong learning. Ensure activities are put in place to develop new skill sets and to enable continued personal and career growth.

> Effectively blend people into teams as needed, and develop an appreciation for of thought.

With this in mind, the next question we must ask is this: is the conductor currently a member of the MGI core leadership or student team? Possibly. Alex could be that candidate. He already acts as a go-between, has a skill set similar to the creative Igor and Roman, and is close to Henry and Dana's age. Alex also seems to relate to the business side of the business. However, I am not convinced that Alex is the right person for the job because he tends to ignore the cultural aspect of the conflict.

My recommendation would be to bring in some one from the outside who has industry expertise. Ideally, I would look for someone between a blue and red, using the Insights Discovery Profile schematic. This would be an individual who would ensure:

> a shared approach to problem solving

> that issues are dealt with in a rational and logic manner

And someone who is red who would ensure:

> goal driven behavior

> respect for everyones talents

I would then structure MGI's organization in such a manner that would place Igor and Roman in charge of creative concepts, Sasha in charge of business operations, Dav in charge of production and deployment, and Henry and Dana in charge of business analysis and marketing. Sales would fall on several individuals but primarily the new person along with Igor who is viewed as charismatic. Alex can assist with Igor and Roman with the creative.

In my view, and in order to get MGI working towards success whomever is the leader should organize MGI in such a manner so as to maximize each member's strengths.

The Tip of the Iceberg

I've just finished the book "The Tip of the Iceberg" by David Hutchens, and in a cute and often times hysterically funny way it presents some great leadership lessons. For those who have not read this entertaining book, it tells the tale of two distinct species (penguins and walruses) and how they unite (collaborate) to mutually prosper on an iceberg. However, as with all poorly planned ventures doom settles in and takes many forms.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. The initial protocol (agreement between penguins and walruses) was not well conceived. The protocol focused only on results and lacked specifics and measurements. There was no thought given to implementation or controls. Unlike a road map that includes a destination and pathways to that destination, the protocol only contained a loosely defined destination. Because of this expected results were not easily achieved.

2. Initially both sides viewed their agreement as a win-win when in fact during implementation each side was focused more on their side winning than ensuring mutual victory. In time, each species again became territorial as resources became limited.

3. A major lesson learned from this book is this: even though one may be unable to see or anticipate the "hidden forces that can make or break your organization" (underneath the iceberg), by undertaking a systematic and proper planning process one can anticipate or avoid the hidden forces.

4. Another major lesson learned from this book is this: a leader's primary role is to envision the future and the consequences of the many pathways leading to that future. For example, I recently coordinated my company's long-term strategic plan. We started by creating a list of where we want to be in 5 years (destination). We created simple yet specific and measurable statements. Based on each future statement we then developed specific and measurable strategies (pathways). From there we developed specific and measurable tactics, which are specific to-do's that if accomplished will ensure the planned-for outcome (more detailed pathways).

Each month, functional leaders report on their progress. They report actual versus planned results. Variances against planned results are thoroughly explained. Over time, variances show a pattern of success or failure and ultimately lead to modification (alignment). Here we review the original plan and think of other forces that may be in play. When you think of our planning process, it is clear that a) a future has been well-defined, b) specific and measurable tactics are codified to meet the planned future, and c) controls are established to benchmark/measure our success along the way. The planning process is an example of systems thinking.

Finally, the concept of systems thinking is parallel to the process I employ in implementing change. Here, the following must occur in order to ensure successful change: 1) preparation, 2) establishing urgency, 3) discerning a vision and pathway to that vision, 4) communicating the vision, 5) empowering change leaders, 6) developing an implementation plan that is measurable, 7) implementing controls, and 8) reinforce through alignment (appropriate modifications based on variances).

Overall, this was a great book and I intend to integrate it into our company's leadership development program.