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.

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!”

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

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 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

• Three Steps for Managers to Inspire Action. With Dr. Seuss. // Project Shrink Blog
• 10 Action Steps to Stop Your Drama and Become the Leader of Your Life « Stop Your Drama
• Brewers Association announces 2010 Board of Directors | Beernews.org
• Women Lack Numbers and Influence on Corporate Boards | Business Ethics
• WaylandeNews » Preview of the Board of Selectmen Meeting for Monday, March 22, 2010
• Executive Q&A: Suzanne Dove, providing a global perspective on business – Wisconsin State Journal — Top Ten Business Schools
• WELL DONE TREE FOUNDATION:
• TREE Foundation – Tree Research, Exploration and Education

A recent study measured successful CEOs for the Big 5 personality traits (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and stability) and found the closest correlation with conscientiousness.

The authors of the study, Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen (“Which C.E.O. Characteristics and Abilities Matter?”) relied on detailed personality assessments of 316 C.E.O.’s and measured their companies’ performances. So where do you think you are on the conscientiousness scale? What traits of successful CEOs do you have?

Here are some sample questions:

• I am always prepared.
• I am exacting in my work.
• I follow a schedule.
• I get chores done right away.
• I like order.
• I pay attention to details.
• I leave my belongings around. (reversed)
• I make a mess of things. (reversed)
• I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reversed)
• I shirk my duties. (reversed)

Regardless of whether you think you score high or low on this scale, you should not leap to the conclusion that these are the most important traits of successful CEOs. On the contrary, I can point to dozens of case studies in which passion, honorable behavior, and humility played a much greater role in defining successful leaders and successful companies. The real difference between the successful and not-so-successful CEO has nothing to do with personality. It has to do with traits that are learned, like persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours. It would be easy to miss this point if you were inclined to put too much faith in nature, not nurture.

Next blog article: “Executive Leadership Coaching – Traits of a Successful Leader Coach”

Watching the baseball playoffs makes me think back to the times when I played on teams in school. In particular, it makes me think about what coaches do to help their teams win. If your coach was any good, he or she did all of the things listed below:

• Make sure you know the rules of play
• Get you in shape
• Drill you on plays
• Figure out your strengths
• Define your role
• Challenge you to improve
• Boost your confidence
• Build team camaraderie
• Help you win during the game
• Think long-term about the team’s needs

A leader-coach does all these things. I want to focus on two here: Drilling you on plays and helping you win during the game.

When your actions affect hundreds of people, you need to be drilled in advance so you’re prepared to do the right thing: how to communicate, who needs to be in the loop, what pitfalls to avoid, how to detect early signs of trouble. A leader-coach will take his or her team through simulations and exercises designed to get you prepared. At HSBC Bank, for example, managers are drilled on how to handle cross-border disputes. At Sprint, IT managers are drilled on crisis management. It’s easy to see how this investment can pay off. At Sprint, dozens of network problems are headed off each day because their teams are prepared.

Leader-coaches also help you win while you’re playing the game. They provide real-time feedback as you’re handling an issue, offering support and giving useful insights. Their doors are open, they keep their heads, they offer perspective. I’ll never forget how one of my first bosses helped me deal with deadline pressure. “Look,” he said with a grin. “The beauty of the business is that everyone forgets what you did after 24 hours. So if you screw up, you can make it right in a hurry.”

Related blog post: “Traits of Successful CEOs“

In 1957, Peter Drucker first used the expression “postmodern organization” to describe a new kind of fluid, organic, flexible company. In a book titled, Landmarks of Tomorrow, Drucker wrote that the shift from the universe of mechanical cause and effect to a new universe of pattern, purpose, and process would permanently transform how leaders view themselves and their jobs.

Drucker was right. The world did become more complex. Our global markets became so complex that a single action can send tremors through the world’s financial markets. We are inter-connected in ways never before seen.

So I found myself asking the last few days: “What would Peter Drucker have done?” How would he react to Wall Street’s meltdown? One thing I know for sure, he would have disapproved of the bailout. It pushes more money into the wrong places – into the hands of bankers. He would have looked to fix the problem at its source.

And where’s the source? The commercial paper that enables corporations to do business is tied to the money markets. When it froze up, when the value of a money market share “broke the buck,” that’s when the panic began.

I believe that Peter Drucker would have looked to the money markets to fix the problem. He would have insured it against “breaking the buck.” That would enable the commercial paper to flow freely again and the panic would end.

Yes, it’s a far different world from 1957. But if Peter Drucker were alive, the conversation would be different. Peter Drucker would have said: “Resist the stampede to the simple, quick fix. Work for the long term systemic solution.”

Related executive management blog post: “Executive Leadership Coaching” Learn the characteristic traits of a successful leader coach.

The CEO of a large financial services company used to hold meetings of his leadership team twice a week. He held them in a small conference room on the third floor of their San Francisco headquarters. The room was too small for the 14 participants to fit in comfortably. Ironically, there was a much larger conference room on the same floor near the CEO’s office.

One day, a member of the team asked the CEO, “Bruce, why do you continue to cram us into this conference room twice a week. Why don’t we move the meeting to the bigger conference room down the hall?”

Bruce replied, “This is a high profile conference room. A lot of people walk by. I want them to see who’s in charge and that we’re working together.

If nothing else comes out of these meetings, that will be enough.”

Brilliant, the team member thought to himself. “Thanks,” he said to the CEO. “I get it now.”

Related blog: “Executive Leadership Coaching“

A CEO of a high-tech company told me today his story of managing change. The company has doubled in size over the past three years. Alex decided to split the company into two business units, headed by two new senor vice presidents. From a structural perspective, it made sense.

Rather than promote from within, however, he brought in two people from the outside whom he felt would change the company’s culture. He wanted more discipline and management expertise, he told me. The problem is that the people who used to report to Alex are chafing. They don’t feel respected for the work they’ve done. They miss the direct access and the open culture. They feel the new structure isn’t working.

“What can I do?” Alex asked me.

First, I said, think about managing change. That’s your role. How are you communicating why the new structure is important and the value it will have for the company? What are you doing to make sure everyone understands?

“I know I’m not doing enough,” he said.

I also talked about his leadership style. “In the old structure, you were comfortable directing people and telling them what to do.” That won’t work in this new structure, I told him.

He listened as I went on. “You’re the one who has to change. Otherwise, you’ll undercut your new senior vice presidents. You’ve got to be their coach.  As a coach, you can’t tell them what to do. You have to ask them good questions, and get them to assume responsibility for making the change work successfully.”

He thought about it for a while, asked a few questions, and then said: “It makes a lot of sense. How could you help us?”

“I could help the three of you develop a game plan for managing change. I think that would have enormous impact.”

“Great!” he said. “When can we start?”

Related blog: “Change Management Model“

At the heart of high performing organizations is clarity of decision-making roles. I have one client that illustrates this problem to a T. It is a partnership. Its mission is to educate people about important policy issues. There is no CEO. No one is clearly in charge. No one can define exactly what each person should do — and, more importantly, not do. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the goals have changed over time, which naturally affects the work done by each partner.

For example, one partner wants to review and give feedback on the publications produced by another partner. But should it? Is that appropriate? No one can say. Given the lack of role clarity, each partner struggles to assert their particular agenda and to carve out a greater role in decision making. This ongoing tug of war consumes huge amounts of time and energy, sapping the resources of the organization.

 What can I do? First, I can name the problem and put the conversation about roles squarely on the table. I can facilitate agreements about ground rules and role definition. Second, I can help them evolve a clearer decision-making structure, naming the particular processes that get engaged for major decisions. Third, I can look at the gaps in capacity where these power struggles tend to occur, and motivate people to put more capacity in place to close the gaps.

 Will that make this a high performing organization? No, because role clarity is only one of the nine habits of high performing organizations. But with decision-making roles clarified, we can focus on defining outcomes, strategies and operating rules with the right group of people at the table.

 And that will be a big accomplishment!

Next blog post: “CEO Coaching Lesson: The Conference Room“