Steve’s Leadership ideas

The trouble with coaching is that it challenges you to play a bigger game. And, when you engage in playing a bigger game, feelings of self-doubt and overwhelm accompany you onto the playing field — alongside the feelings of excitement and bravado! Fortunately, a great coach can provide expert guidance through this time of temporary turmoil with personalized teaching that expands your capabilities. coaches not only help you play bigger, they help you play better, and win!

Players who think they can play a big game without a coach are deluded. Athletes who are playing big games don’t even think about playing without having a coach at their side. And neither should you. Having a coach is assurance that you will play at your best.

The pitfalls of playing without a coach are isolation, frustration and overwhelm, to name a few. So why do some business owners, professionals or those involved in the game of business think that they can play a big game without a coach? It just doesn’t make sense, does it? Playing an unwinnable game just isn’t any fun!

Many leaders and executives are stuck in an unwinnable game. How do you know when you are playing an unwinnable game? If you aren’t starting your day enthused about what lies ahead each day, or worse - dreading the day ahead of you, chances are good that you are in an unwinnable game. Another related clue, is that at the end of the day you feel drained and exhausted rather than energized about how you played that day. You will likely feel like you’re further behind than when you started. you feel depleted. Yet another clue is that you continue to fuel yourself with coffee and snacks to get through the day. All of these situations - along with routinely feeling isolated, frustrated and overwhelmed - are indications of playing an unwinnable game. An unwinnable game is scorless and feels useless.

Another problem is not playing a game that matters - a game worth playing. Ask yourself, “why am I playing this game?” If your game does not have meaning for you, if there is no compelling reason that taps your gifts - your purpose in life, obstacles will continually be bigger thatn your desire and you will feel defeated.

So how does coaching address this situation? An experienced coach helps you design a winnable game worth playing!When you have a winnable game worth playing, and you know that you can win on your own terms, you are able to play bigger, play better and win. And, most importantly, have fun!

Once you and your coach have designed a winnable game worth playing, your coach works with you to develop a game plan, which includes daily practices, a weekly scorecard and relevant strategies. After you coach puts you “in the game,” your inner game and environmental design (people, places, things and ideas that support you - or not) are addressed. Your progress is continually monitored, and adjustments made, to take advantage of what’s working and eliminate what is not.

Everyone has a desire to play games, to play ‘the game of their life.’ Coaching addresses the problem of playing an unwinnable game, and eliminates the related symptoms of isolation, frustration and overwhelm.

As a coach, I help my clients design a winnable game worth playing, and help them see where and how they can play bigger and play better. I coach winners! Call me if you want to counted among the winning players on my team!

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=12

Leaders are readers, according to LOVE IS THE KILLER APP author, Tim Sanders. Accordingly, I’ve become a well-read lovecat. One of the books I’ve recently fiinished is Peter Senge’s THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE (Revised and updated). Lot’s of gems there. One of those gems is a comment by Roger Saillant, who was responsible for some of the remarkable turnaround stories at Ford in the 80’s and 90’s.

This is the comment that I believe is remarkable: Saillant commented that his bosses never asked him how he accomplished his results. That seems newsworthy in and of itself! “He concluded,” Senge writes, “that this was because, at some level, they knew it entailed a degree of vulnerability, of being human, that is never comfortable, and most of them were not prepared to feel that exposed.”

I totally understand the resistance to making myself vulnerable. And yet, isn’t making yourself vulnerable inherent in being a leader? It seems to me that leadership requires me to model vulnerability and being human.

What do you think? Is your experience that leaders avoid vulnerability and being human? Who then, models those qualities in your organization? Is there a place for vulnerability and being human in business? Whose role is it to model vulnerability?

Once again, it seems to me that this is where the skills of emotional intelligence come in. They allow you to be vulnerable without losing credibility. It seems to me the question is how do I make myself vulnerable? And, how do I model being human in a genuine and effective way? Rather than how do I avoid those feelings. Emotional Intelligence will show you the way.

Contact me for an assessment and coaching program focused on enhancing your emotional intelligence - the skills of managing yourself (and uncomfortable feelings) as well as relating to and influencing others.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=11

If you are like me, there is nothing better than an engaging read about leadership and current applications of insightful thinking. So it was with more than a little disappointment that I read a recent article in the February 7 issue of the Globe and Mail entitled “Leadership: You’ve got to want it — and build on it.” It was a report of what “career experts” told the participants at the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario. The convention attracted HR officers from across Canada the article says.

A California-based “expert”, who has written a book, told the group that there are 4 factors that people consistently say they want to see in a leader. “These are factors that executives say would make for someone [who] people will follow willingly, rather than because they have to.” That wasn’t the disappointing part, of course. This was: These are factors that will allow an employer to choose leadership talent within their organization. “The top traits by a wide margin are: 1) showing honesty in all dealings; 2) having forward-looking ideas; 3) demonstrating consistent competency; and, 4) providing inspiration to others.”

Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I’d want anyone on my staff that didn’t exhibit those traits. Factors to predict successful employment? Perhaps. Factors to predict successful leadership roles? Unlikely.

Another ‘expert’, this one a Toronto-based consultant, said that there is growing consensus about what it takes to be successful as a leader. That’s interesting. If I search ‘leadership’ in the books section at amazon.com I get 193,692 results. There’s either disagreement about the definition of leadership, or the definition of consensus.

It is interesting that the two ‘experts’ at the Ontario convention didn’t agree on how to predict leadership success. The Toronto ‘expert’ also offered a checklist for predicting leadership success among staff: “1) propensity to lead; 2) results driven 3) ability to bring out the best; 4) learning agility; 5) corporate fit; 6) mastery of complexity; 7) receptivity to feedback adaptability; 9) performance despite ambiguity; and 10) communications skills.” This looks to me more like a list for management skills.

The were encouraging ideas that the Globe and Mail article reported on however. The two ‘experts’ agreed that “success in leadership will lie in your ability to get people to align with your goals.” And “there is no evidence that the tougher you are and the more you take charge and call all the shots, the more effective you will be.” And finally, “efforts to improve the quality of the relationship between a manger and a direct report will add to the effectiveness of a leader.” The California ‘expert’ said that you should “practice leadership skills like listening, communicating and giving and receiving feedback” daily.

Why has the article left me feeling more confident? Because I encourage organizations to use the Genos Emotional Intelligence assessments with coaching support to predict leadership success. The reason is simple: Genos measures 7 emotional skills: self-awareness; expression; awareness of others;  reasoning;  self-management; management of others; and self-control.

In my experience, these abilities are far more reliable predictors of leadership success than having forward-looking ideas or demonstrating consistent competency.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=10

While Leadership styles can certainly influence the effectiveness of a Leader.  So can the styles exhibited by the followers.  Three styles to consider are the Opposer, the By-stander and the Follower.

The Follower is your ally.  They are committed to your Vision and share your image of a ‘preferred future’.  Followers take initiative and do what it takes to make it happen. In the words of Peter Senge, the committed people dosn’t play by the rules of the game, they are responsible for the game.

The By-stander sees the benefits of your Vision and are generally compliant - not committed - and will do what is expected, but no more.

The Opposer does not see the benefits of your Vision. They can be grudingly compliant, so as not to lose their job, doing just enough of what is expected while letting it be known that they are not really on board.  Or they can be openly defiant and not do what is expected.

It is part of the role of a Leader to understand these forces and deal with them accordingly.  The Leader needs to find out what Opposers want and then show how the identified method is best suited to accomplish that goal.

It is critical to not confuse compliance with commitment.  This confusion most often occurs when the Vision is dictated, rather than building upon individual’s personal visions through inquiry and participation.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=9

Can’t help but notice that after Saddam was sentenced to death, he tells the Court that those in his country who are fighting and killing one another need to consider forgiveness, “shake hands and be friends” I think he was reported saying.

And after the Bush Republicans were ushered out of the House and Senate switching control of both to Democrats, Bush says that he is now willing to consider new ideas about Iraq. But not a day sooner, mind you. “Shows what I know.” No kidding! What else don’t you know? But I digress.

Is that what leadership is about?  Hold an extreme vision and not reconsider your methods (or your madness) until you are out of chips? What would have happened had Saddam said those words in 2003? What could have happened when it was obvious there were no WMD’s had Bush said then that he was willing to consider new ideas about Iraq?  Are those scenarios “unleaderlike”?

In his book STATE OF DENIAL, Bob Woodward writes about many the many times Bush had information suggesting that current reality was not aligned with his goals.  If his vision was compelling, his ability to answer difficult questions, with humility, seemed absent.

Is it possible for a leader to express doubt, consider other ideas, and still  be a Leader? Or is it necessary to repeat the vision, deny any doubts, and carry on lest the followers falter?  It happens all the time doesn’t it?  Don’t we all ignore evidence that things aren’t going as we planned?  Is it different when the Leader does it? More acceptable? Less?

Buckingham suggests that a leader doesn’t have to be right.  They only need to clear.  Does being clear mean not admitting mistakes until it appears “too late”?

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=8

One of the qualities mentioned most often as a requirement for successful leadership is courage. I love that word because it derives from the French root meaning “heart”. But I digress.

An article in the Calgary Herald  recently was titled “Fear Factor in Business Surprises Researchers”. According to the article - the researchers, Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School and James Detert of Penn State, asked the following question: “Barring shyness, are you concerned if you say something that the boss doesn’t like it will hinder your career?” Apparently, a “surprising number” of people do.

I’m not surprised. Are you? The management professors titled their paper: “Latent Voice Episodes: The Situation-Specific Nature of Speaking Up at Work”. The word latent was used to describe those moments when someone ‘thinks’ about speaking up about an issue, but doesn’t.

Too often, most people -not just leaders- ignore and/or dismiss information that seems counter to their goals and their identified means of achieving them.

One of my favorite examples of speaking up occurred when I was teaching for the Colorado Outward Bound School. After about a week teaching about trip planning, map reading, navigation and related skills, our students were preparing to leave for a ’self-led trip’. My co-instructor and I would meet them at a pre-determined place that afternoon. As they were discussing the proposed route at the trail-head, one of the young women said while looking up from her map, “But if that’s the trail, why is that mountain there?”

She didn’t insist upon an answer and no one else in the group did either. The group took off down the wrong trail, while the other instructor and I figured out where they would end up and when, and proceeded to take another route to intercept them later that day.

At least she spoke up! I’ve been in a number of situations where I didn’t. Why not? A variety of reasons I suppose. Often, I tell myself that I must be wrong. The leader knows best…there are any number of people that know better… I suppose that adds up to fear. Fear that I will be wrong. Fear that I will be criticized.

The researchers concluded that the fear of speaking up is the result of “the general nature of human beings.” We are, according to Amy and James, “hard-wired to overestimate certain types of risk so that we opt to escape from threats”. Apparently, we are afraid “in a modern economy to get into trouble or offend those in positions of authority.”

Which begs the question, “why is offering valuable information ‘troublesome and/or offensive’? The article doesn’t say. Instead, the question is posed “How can employees be encouraged to express their concerns?” The answer, according to the researchers, is that it would be “a difficult task.”

How is courage exhibited in your organization? Is speaking up encouraged? How? Do leaders model respect for disagreement? Do leaders model the ability to be wrong? How would increasing Emotional Intelligence skills contribute to a more supportive culture?

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=7

Thanks to Stacy, who identifies 2 of the leadership “styles” that I use when talking about situational leadership. These styles are often adapted depending on 2 factors: 1) the level of ability of the participants, and 2) the perceived level of risk presented by the situation.

First, I’ll identify the 4 styles: 1) authoritarian or controlling 2) selling 3) consulting 4) engaging or l’aise faire. When the risk is high and the level of ability low, the controlling or “military” style might be most effective. When risk is high and participant ability is also high, the selling or consulting style might be most effective. When risk is low and participant ability is low, again either the selling or consulting style may be preferred. When risk is low and participant ability high, the engaging style might be preferred.

That’s the theory, anyway. Of course other factors will influence which style is used. The leader’s values, their confidence in the participants, and their preferred style will all play a role. The idea is that the likelihood of full engagement increases dramatically when the style is more closely matched with the situation.

I agree wholeheartedly that the common theme of a successful leader is their ability to visualize the future and then communicate it in order to obtain shared enthusiasm for its achievement.

What is your experience readers, would you agree that the style meaningfully influences the ablitity to successfully communicate and achieve a shared vision?

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=5

There seems to be a lot of focus these days about “leadership”.  Apart from all of the books and articles about leadership, many executives and managers that I talk to seem to mention it as well.  There’s “we need more leadership”, “our leadership initiative”, “our leadership group/team”, “servant leadership”, “leadership skills” and “different kind of leadership”, among other phrases.  Perhaps you could add your own list?

My fascination with leadership began in 1985, when I took a “Leadership” course with  the Appalachian Mountain Club - New England Chapter, and then began leading trips for them in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.  This experience eventually led to “retirement” from my law practice, attending the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), and Instructing for the Colorado Outward Bound School.  I’ve been a student of Leadership ever since.

Marcus Buckingham recently made a valuable distinction for me between leading and managing in his book: THE ONE THING YOU NEED TO KNOW… About Great Managing, Great Leading, and Sustained Individual Success.  In Chapter 2 he proposes “the only satisfactory definition”: ‘Great leaders rally people to a better future.’ p59

So what do we mean by “Leadership”?  What is a good working definition?  Is it enough to say that if someone is following you, you are a leader? My current thinking is that there are two kinds of leadership.  There is the  Leader, and then there are leaders.  I think Buckingham does a superb job of explaining what makes a great leader and what makes a great manager.  (And some people are both - although they require quite different talents.)

I’m not convinced he adequately addresses the ‘clamoring’ by certain people that ALL people in an organization need to be leaders.  That is where the idea of ’shared leadership’ comes in.  It allows the CEO to be the leader, while appreciating the leadership of the janitor as well.

 What do you think? What is your definition of leadership? Is there more than one kind?

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.stevebrewster.com/wp-trackback.php?p=3