Leading at Light Speed by Eric Douglas » Governance Development

The “Hostile Media Effect” – A Lesson in Group Dynamics

admin — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:45:15 +0000

David Pogue, the New York Times columnist, writes in Scientific American this month about the “hostile media effect.” This is a cognitive phenomenon where people who hold strong opinions about something perceive that media coverage of that topic is prejudiced, no matter how neutral the coverage actually is.

The same phenomenon happens in groups. People who hold strong opinions about something perceive that anyone who asks questions is biased against them, regardless of how neutral or innocent the questions are.

I saw it in action this week during a meeting of the executive team of a health care company. Ten people gathered in a large conference room overlooking San Francisco to discuss the strategic issues faced by the organization. I asked each person to reflect on these questions: “How is the health care environment changing in California? What are the most important opportunities for the company? What should be our priorities over the next year?”

For the most part, the ensuring conversation was excellent. One team member talked about the “triple transformation:” the realignment of state government, health care reform, and the emergence of community care organizations. Another said she was worried about trends in work force development and the growing need for people with expertise in integrated care. Yet another talked about the importance of marketing services to public agencies.

Then Michelle spoke. She was vice president of marketing, new to the management team. She started by saying: “In my old job, this would be called channel management.” Eyes turned to her. “In a dynamic environment, we need to look at each customer segment and provide a unique value proposition.“

A team member asked: “Can you give us some specific examples?”

“You’re missing my point,” Michelle said. “We need to think more like a business.”

“In what ways?” said the team member.

“We need to be more business-like with our customers. We assume our customers will be there tomorrow, when that’s not necessarily true.”

There was an awkward silence. I could feel the tension ratcheting up in the room. “Which customers are you referring to?” she was asked.

“All of them,” Michelle said. “It should be obvious.” She stared defiantly at her inquisitor.

After the meeting, the CEO asked for my impressions. “I thought it was a good, productive discussion,” I replied. “With one exception.”

“Are you referring to Michelle?” he asked. “That was classic. There should be a name for what she did.”

“There already is,” I replied. “It’s called the hostile media effect. She’s highly opinionated and perceives innocent questions as hostile to her.”

“Is it curable?”

“Only in cases where you can get them to eat a large piece of humble pie!”

Learn the habits of high performing organizations in my new book: http://leadingatlightspeed.com.

Managing Decisions in a Light Speed World

admin — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:30:40 +0000

In a world where change is accelerating, where new products and services are developed in ever-faster cycles, the quality of decisions is ultimately the most important test of leadership. Ironically, many managers and leaders are still working with Old World decision-making skills, even while their companies are trying to succeed in a Light Speed world.

A critical skill that leaders must learn in a Light Speed world is how to juggle and manage complex decision processes. As I describe in my latest book, “Leading at Light Speed,” there are five – and only five – types of decisions: autocratic, consultative, consensus, delegated, and democratic.

To be effective in a Light Speed world, more decisions have to be made “consultatively.” In a consultative decision, one person or one group ultimately makes the decision – because it’s their responsibility to do so. In a consultative decision, the leader engages people up front, clarifies that it’s her role to ultimately make the decision, and then gains people’s input. She makes it clear that she is open to different ideas – and she actively creates opportunities for people to speak up. But there’s no expectation that consensus will be reached; instead, people are encouraged to make their case, listen to other arguments, and then listen and answer questions as the leader comes to a conclusion.

There are three keys to success in a consultative decision: First, the leader needs to say up front how the decision process will go and who will make the final call. Roles and responsibilities at each step need to be mapped out. Second, there must be regular updates to remind people when they’ll have opportunities to contribute. Third, it’s key to record the ideas and feedback so that people know their views were heard.

The advantages are obvious: Instead of everyone needing to agree before a decision is made, a consultative decision can flow smoothly to a conclusion. Because people can speak their minds, unfettered by the need to agree with everyone else, unconventional thinking has a better chance to be heard.

Contrast this to a consensus decision. When using consensus, everyone must agree – a much more difficult and time-consuming process. And to what end? Some would say the end is greater “ownership” in the decision. But our experience working with hundreds of different organizations is that people actually lose trust in consensus decisions for several reasons. First, people may have stifled their feelings in order to reach agreement, resulting in a “faux” consensus. Second, people may feel that they had to water down the quality of the decision in the urge to reach consensus. Finally, when people perceive their leaders failing to take responsibility to make decisions, they lose confidence and trust. What’s the point of leadership, they ask, if the people in charge don’t actually manage and make decisions?

Last week, I worked with the executive team from a large organization to help them learn how to manage decisions more effectively. The CEO turned to me afterward and said: “I realize now why we have so many problems with decision making in our company: We aren’t clear at all about how we are going to make a decision. So people simply assume it’s going to be consensus, or assume that the team asked to develop some recommendations is going to make the final call. This has been a huge eye-opener for me!”

A Good Consultant Always Tells The Truth

admin — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:30:43 +0000

One of the axioms of being a good consultant is this: Always tell the truth to your clients! Now this may seem like a no-brainer, but every one of us has experienced moments where we’ve wanted to refrain from telling the truth out of fear that we’ll offend. For a professional management consultant, telling the truth carries the additional fear of losing a client, with all of the financial consequences that entails.

I was reminded of this axiom while working with a large non-profit based in Los Angeles. I was hired to help the board of directors get clear on its governance role. The CEO felt the board was asserting too much control. But as I dug deeper, I found that the board had every reason to be concerned. There was no clear vision, no clear strategy, and the only action plans were on paper – no one truly owned them.

I met with the CEO and told him that my goal, above all else, was to help him and his organization be successful. I told him that, frankly, I felt the organization lacked direction. The strategic planning that the Board had done in 2007 had not resulted in a clear strategic plan. Nothing had not been captured on paper. The management team was off on its own, with no sense of coordinated action or accountability. Frankly, I told him, we needed to start at the beginning. I then looked at him, not sure what to expect.

“You’re absolutely right,” he said. “And I need you to say that to the Board – not once, but many times.”

I raised an eyebrow. After all, he was responsible for the lack of a plan, for the lack of coordination.

“You say that to the Board, and then help us develop a plan,” he said. “That will assure them that we’re on the right track.”

“I can’t do that,” I explained. “You have to carry that message. I can support you, but the Board needs to hear your commitment to making that happen.”

He paused, and then smiled. “No, you’re right again. I’ll let them know that we could have done better. And then I’d like to turn it over to you to facilitate a discussion with them. Can you do that?”

“I would be happy to,” I said. And that was the truth.

The Case of the Restless Board

admin — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:46:07 +0000

I’m working with a Board of Directors that is proving most challenging! This particular Board is a chamber of commerce composed of business owners. Every meeting is a marvel of micro-management. Should our web site have a blue banner or green? Which vendor should we use to host our annual meeting? Tactical decisions like these, which should be left to staff to decide, become all-consuming conversations for this Board.

The root problem is a lack of trust between the Board and executive director. I’ve tried to create systems to build trust. I facilitated the development of a clear and comprehensive business plan. We have developed a performance scorecard. I have talked to the Board about the importance of letting things play out, to see whether the executive director and his staff are up to the task. But no sooner do I make this speech, when I turn around and witness a Board member who wants to talk about the choice of vendors at a cocktail reception!

Boards that truly want to make a difference, that want to generate lasting, sustained success in their organizations, need to stay focused on the things that Boards should do: clarifying and communicating the strategic focus of the organization. This will build trust and enable the executive director and staff to act nimbly and effectively in the face of constant change.

But members of this Board seem only interested in what’s in it for them, today. Part of it stems from the unique way that the organization is funded and structured. Each Board member represents a specific constituency that pays into a central fund that supports the organization. Board members are intrinsically motivated to make sure they get their “fair” share of the kitty.

What I’ve come to realize is that I haven’t done enough to build a collective sense of stewardship on this Board. They still see their job as steering the ship, rather than setting the course. We need to spend more time on long-range vision and specific measures of success tied to that vision.

People often ask me which of the quantum leaps described in my new book “Leading at Light Speed” is the most important. All ten are important. But I would say that aligning people around a clear strategic focus is the most important. It is the framework and the vehicle that enables a Board like this one to build trust and start moving at light speed.

Related Blogs

Crisis Management Reflections on the Gulf Oil Spill

admin — Mon, 17 May 2010 08:09:31 +0000

Watching executives from British Petroleum, Transocean and Halliburton testify before Congress about the Gulf oil spill on Tuesday reminded me of the cardinal rules of leading through a crisis. Unfortunately, it looks like the BP-TO-HB trio never got the memo.

There are two rules to follow in a crisis. Rule number one is this: Protect other people first – customers, employees and citizens. Not your shareholders or yourself. Protect the public and your customers, and the shareholders will follow. Why? Because the long-term reputation and goodwill of your organization are more important than any short-term risk to shareholder value or your own job security.

Rule number two is a corollary to the first: Be prepared to reframe and expand your level of responsibility. In other words, accept responsibility even if you’re not at fault. This may feel counter-intuitive, especially when someone else is clearly culpable. But reframing and expanding your level of responsibility will help lead you out of the crisis.

Consider the Exxon Valdez disaster. When it went aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989, eleven million of oils spilled onto pristine shoreline. In the immediate aftermath, Exxon’s CEO Lawrence Rawl was slow to accept responsibility. Instead he issued a flurry of press releases stating that the company was investigating the accident. The opportunity to quickly contain the spill was squandered. Hundreds of miles of coastline were fouled.

Public furor built and the company’s reputation plunged. Several weeks passed before Rawl grudgingly announced that the company would take responsibility for the clean up. Eventually, thousands of workers and volunteers were mobilized to mop up the oil, save the wildlife, and minimize the damage to the extent possible. But Exxon’s public image was left in tatters because its immediate response was too slow. William Reilly, then head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said Rawl’s response was “a casebook example of how not to communicate to the public when your company messes up.” Rawl’s reputation never recovered.

In contrast, when a container of Odwalla apple juice contaminated by the bacteria e coli resulted in the death of a child in 1996, CEO Greg Stepensall stepped in right away and assumed personal responsibility. He recalled every Odwalla product. He paid out huge sums to the families affected by the tainted products. He held regular press conferences to ensure the public knew what was going on and how the company was responding. For more than a year, Odwalla retooled its production lines, adding flash pasteurization to ensure no future incidents could occur. Sales fell 90 percent but Odwalla survived with its reputation intact.

As the Exxon Valdez and Odwalla examples show, leaders have a clear choice in how they frame their response to a crisis. On the one hand, they can respond out of a “protect ourselves” mentality. Or leaders can think and act out of a larger ethical context, as Odwalla did.

The Tylenol scare in 1986 is another case in point. It was clear when cyanide-laced containers of Tylenol were found on supermarket shelves that a pathological killer was responsible. Johnson & Johnson’s executives could have focused on the criminal aspects and exhorted police to take responsibility for catching the perpetrator. (Indeed, he was caught within a matter of days.)

But Johnson & Johnson’s executives understood the need to immediately take responsibility for the safety of their consumers. This led the company to recall every Tylenol product, design strong anti-tampering packaging, and conduct a massive awareness-building campaign. It is estimated to have cost the company $2 billion, but Johnson & Johnson emerged the stronger for it.

The bottom line is this: When a crisis hits, two dynamics take over: Trust and Empathy. These dynamics are illustrated in the figure below.

The Trust/Empathy Matrix

The empathy scale is governed largely by facts outside your control. In the case of the Exxon Valdez tanker spill, there was little question that the captain was drunk and that Exxon, as his employer, was at fault. Exxon’s leaders had little control over the empathy scale. But they did have control over the trust scale, which they messed up. In the Tylenol case, Johnson & Johnson was clearly not at fault. Yet it chose to assume full responsibility. As a consequence, the company was rewarded.

In Japanese corporate cultures, managers are trained to accept personal responsibility for anything that goes wrong on their watch. To Western eyes, this seems odd. We’re amazed when a Japanese CEO resigns because of the incorrect action of a freighter captain or an accounting irregularity. Yet as the Trust/Empathy Matrix shows, it’s also smart business. When a crisis hits, assuming responsibility and taking immediate, corrective action is more important than safeguarding your job.

Too bad the folks at British Petroleum, Transocean and Halliburton haven’t learned that lesson.

Lessons for a Board President

admin — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:36:34 +0000

In passing the leadership torch at a non-profit organization, I was asked to name the things that effective Board presidents do. Here’s my list:

1. Facilitate and preside over the Board meetings, starting on time, ending on time, keeping the conversation on topic, calling on people who are quiet, trying to engage everyone.

2. Model the behaviors you want to see in others during Board meetings. Be present and attentive. Listen carefully, paraphrase people’s positions, and clarify the action steps. Provide positive feedback.

3. Be clear about the role of the Board. The Board needs to make decisions that are appropriate for the Board: i.e. adopt a strategic plan, approve a budget, and decide on other important matters. Treat those matters with the seriousness they deserve. Don’t let the Board slip into bureaucratic behaviors (for example, by appointing committees to oversee staff’s work).

4. Be direct and straightforward about any conflicts you see or issues before they become elephants in the room.

5. Keep a focus on the organization as a business. Keep focused on generating market-driven revenues, in addition to philanthropic fund-raising. Keep asking “who pays, who benefits” types of questions. Challenge people when they drift into non-business-like thinking.

6. Be actively engaged in planning the Board’s agendas. Feel free to elevate things that you think the Board needs more time with. Don’t rubber stamp staff’s suggested agendas.

7. Be available to the chief executive and staff as a sounding board. Spend time with them separately, talking through matters of importance and thinking through how best to optimize the expertise and talents of Board members. Help them understand the role of the Board.

8. Think about the legacy you want to leave as Board president. Pick one or two goals, such as diversifying the Board or elevating its fund-raising capabilities, and commit yourself publicly to achieving them.

9. Be thoughtful about who you want to succeed you. A Board president has a lot of sway over his or her successor.

Leadership Tools

Five Habits of High-Performing Boards

When a Board of Directors serves in a governing capacity (e.g. for a non-profit, a public agency, or a corporation), the Board needs to act in certain ways in order to assure high levels of performance throughout the organization. This tool lays out the five habits of high-performing governing boards.

The Evolution of Non-Profit Boards

The Board of a non-profit organization typically follows an evolutionary path as the organization matures. This tool lays out three stages of Board evolution and identifies the characteristic behaviors of each stage. This tool can apply to public agencies, city councils, non-profits, and co-ops. Board members can use this tool to help clarify their role and adapt the Board’s focus accordingly.

Related Blogs

Good Governance Development – A Consultant’s Story

admin — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:04:58 +0000

I worked recently with the Board of Directors of a large public power company. They needed stronger governance systems. I talked about how effective boards work. I detailed our approach.

“With our framework,” I told them, “the board expresses exactly what it wants the organization to achieve in the form of policies. By defining what it expects in writing, and by regularly monitoring those policies, the Board can do its job, staff can do its job, and the organization can achieve high levels of performance.”

“But we already have policies,” one board member said.

“You do have policies,” I said. “But those policies are not the board’s policies. They are a mixture of state and federal policy, with a lot of your staff’s policy thrown in for good measure. I’m talking about a separate set of policies that express only what the Board wants the organization to achieve.”

“Why would we need that?” said another board member. “Our policies seem fine to me.”

“Because it would enable the board to communicate as a board,” I said. “Right now, you communicate as individual board members. But the board of directors is a single entity, and the board needs to say what it wants. Otherwise, your staff has to guess. And that leads to all sorts of mischief and mayhem.”

“Maybe we like it that way,” said one board member. “We can then tell them to do what we want.”

“Is that really how you want to communicate?” I asked. “What if you had 20 bosses, all telling you different things? How long would you last in that organization?”

I let that sink in. “Look, the best boards in the country use this framework. I’ve seen the results. It enables the organization to be clear about its priorities, clear about its measures of success, and clear on how it’s going to evaluate the general manager or CEO. That’s good governance. All boards should aspire to it.”

“Well,” said one board member. “Maybe we just like doing it our way.”

At least that’s honest, I thought to myself. Out loud, I asked, “How many of you would like to move toward this framework? How many of you would like to try this?”

A few hands went up, and then a few more. I looked at the one board member who was most vocally resistant. Slowly his hand went up, too. I looked around. All the board members were raising their hands.

“All right,” I said. “It looks like you have made a decision. Let’s figure out what you want to do next.”

Related Article: “Good Governance and Performance Goals“

Related Blogs

Good Governance and Performance Goals

admin — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:04:26 +0000

I was talking about good governance with an elected official, a member of a city council. “What do you do to encourage good governance?” I asked him.

“I ask people what’s going on. I ask employees at all different levels how they’re doing. That’s how I find out which departments are well managed, and which are not.”

“Really?” I asked. “Is that how you spend your time?”

“I think that’s why the people elected me – to find out what’s going on.” He said the city charter permitted him to “get whatever information he wanted from whomever he wanted.” He could call a parks employee, ask why the grass hadn’t been watered, and expect the employee to tell him.

“Who would let the city manager know?” I asked.

“It’s not my job to tell the city manager,” said he said. “I assume the employee will tell him.”

“But couldn’t that lead to chaos?” I asked.

“I don’t know.”

“What about determining the overall direction of the city, and setting long-term policy, and setting performance goals for the city. Isn’t that the city council’s role?”

“We don’t have performance measures,” he replied.

“Well, that explains a lot.” I smiled. “Listen, you have no formal feedback mechanisms. So you’ve had to go out and invent your own. I can understand that.”

He nodded. “Do you know how I measure whether the streets are being cleaned? I put a newspaper in the gutter and then check a day later to see if it is still there.”

Imagine what would happen, I said, if the city council did define performance measures. “Then you could focus on measuring performance, not as individuals inventing your own measures, but using agreed-upon measures. That would create alignment at the top – and lead to a clear understanding of everyone’s role.”

The city councilman grinned. “That would be a good trick.” He said his goodbyes and left.

Yes, I thought to myself. It is a good trick.

Read Related Blog: “Good Governance Development“

Good People, Bad Partners: Conflict Resolution through Good Governance Policy

admin — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:59:22 +0000

What makes good people be bad partners? Over the past month I’ve witnessed the dissolution of a law firm’s 15-year partnership. It began when one of the senior partners filed for divorce. The timing was unfortunate. It came just weeks before two high-powered associates were scheduled to buy shares. A buy-in signals the value of the stock. Fearing the repercussions, the senior partner (the one with the looming divorce) announced he wanted to put the deal on hold. “We have to wait,” he told his colleagues. Secretly, he was holding out for more money.

Fast forward two months. Five partners split away, forming a new firm, taking several associates with them, including the two who were scheduled for the buy-in. The senior partner became one of four shareholders in the firm. Three months later, the firm filed for bankruptcy, citing an excess of debt and an inability to draw in new investors.

Could this have been prevented? Of course. With the appropriate governance mechanisms, the firm could have put in place systems to deal with conflicts such as these. It requires trust to build those types of systems – and a desire to make those decisions long before trouble occurs. Most important, everyone needs to assume responsibility. In this case, they hadn’t. And that made all the difference.

Next blog post: Our Change Management Model

A Balanced Scorecard for Public Agencies

admin — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:56:21 +0000

I work with a lot of public agencies and their Boards of Directors. Typically, my focus is on helping these Board develop a high-level scorecard that the Board can rely on for measuring the organization’s performance. This, in turn, will accelerate the organization to attain higher levels of performance.

The important thing about the scorecard is that it has to be balanced. It has to balance all the aspects of what is essential to the organization’s success – from financial sustainability to customer satisfaction, from product reliability to ethical integrity.

The organization’s core values are the things that, if the organization could speak for itself, it would say are most important to it. Each of them can be measured. A balanced scorecard will look at 8-10 different categories of core values and assign metrics and targets to each of them. A tool on our website called Developing Core Values explains this in detail.

An unbalanced scorecard, in contrast, will have too many metrics. They won’t be focused on outcomes, but rather on outputs. Too many of them will fall into one category, like financial. Other core values, like integrity or environmental stewardship, may be neglected.

Read Next Blog Article: “Corporate Leadership Development Program“