Generative Leadership

Origins of Emotional Intelligence

2012-02-26T13:50:00.000-05:00

Most of us have at least heard of emotional intelligence (EQ). It entered the lexicon of popular business jargon with Daniel Goleman's book, Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (1995). Since then EQ has been used to designate virtually any non-intellectual aspect of personality and interpersonal style. In this article I summarize what EQ means and offer insights from recent developmental research on how EQ-type abilities and competencies develop initially and how they can be enhanced in adult life.

We have long known that intellectual ability (IQ) is positively correlated with academic and career success. Research also indicates that there are "ceiling effects" for this factor. At some point more IQ ceases to differentiate those who succeed from those who are less successful. This is nowhere more evident than among leaders in business and in the professions, people who tend to identify deeply with their intellectual powers and who enjoy being recognized for them.

Given this IQ bias, Goleman's writing on EQ freed many to discuss something that had seemed "fuzzy," less discussable. He cited credible research from psychology and explained why it takes more than intellectual acuity and "hard" skills to be successful in life. More attention was paid to the "softer," psychosocial variables of leadership. It became permissible to cite EQ gaps as potential career-stoppers.

In parallel with the growing popularity of EQ, other streams of research from relational neurobiology and attachment-based psychotherapy have been shedding light on how EQ-type characteristics are developed. They gave special attention to the role of early life experience in shaping our personal identity and social-emotional predispositions. These features of personality include how we feel about ourselves (self-esteem, potency, competence), and how we feel about relating to others (trust/mistrust, open/closed, warm/distant).

The research has also indicated that early social-emotional tendencies (relational orientation) can be predictive of how we handle relationships in adult life. Even more importantly, it has suggested ways to intervene and help people modify their sense of identity and their relational orientation in adult life in cases where the earlier version (narrative) proves unsatisfying and self-limiting. Far less has been written about the relevance of this research for leader development. I will at least try to touch on it in this brief article.

My purpose, then, is two-fold: 1) to briefly define what is meant by EQ; and 2) to interweave within Goleman's EQ framework some observations from recent research concerning how EQ is initially formed and how it may be adaptively reshaped in adult life. My hope is that the thoughtful reader will identify developmental themes that he or she can personally resonate with, that feel important and relevant for his or her career as a leader, and that he or she will pursue them!

The Meaning of EQ

Goleman originally presented EQ in a dimensional model consisting of five domains. They are presented below in bold italicized print. I briefly describe them and offer comments on how these "abilities" are shaped by early life experience. Recent research indicates that relational dynamics are the crucible within which the self is initially defined. It is also in this crucible that our relational orientation (tendencies in relating to others) is formed. This development starts in the infant-caregiver relationship. It generates an internal working model for how we view ourselves and relate to others. The narrative underlying this model may be reopened and revised later with effort and help.

Knowing one's own emotions, includes the capacity to monitor one's moment-to-moment feelings in order to be "better pilots" in responding to situations, making decisions, and taking action. Goleman cited research on how sensory experience of a potential threat can cause the "emotional brain" to "hijack" the "thinking brain." The appropriateness of the fight/flight reaction is shaped by our life experience, i.e., what was encoded as threatening for us in early life. E.g., in some homes a raised voice may be followed by physical abuse, in other homes it leads to verbal debate.
Managing emotions concerns a person's capacity to use his/her emotional self-awareness and insight adaptively when facing challenges and adversity. Anxiety is a basic human emotion that affects us all at times. When we are overwhelmed by the level of challenge we face do we find a way to right ourselves and cope with these feelings? Our resilience in this situation is shaped by prior experiences. Did we learn that setbacks are survivable? Did we learn that we could trust others to help, or did we come to believe that we were on our own?
Motivating oneself is a self-directing, purposive striving for a goal. It implies an ability to restrain impulsiveness, delay gratification, and sustain focus on a path toward the goal. Certain dispositional tendencies will predict one's capacity to do this. Has one's early life experience given one reason to feel confident, hopeful, and potent in pursuing goals, navigating hurdles, and persisting? Children whose parents were reliably there for them, encouraged them to try new things, and helped them learn from their setbacks will typically be advantaged.
Recognizing emotions in others is described as empathy. It requires that we receptively attune ourselves to others, especially their verbal and nonverbal expressions of feeling. This involves experiencing the other from the subjective point of view of their internal world. As a result the other person "feels felt," which leads to a state of resonance, which might be expressed as, "We have a shared awareness of what this feels like for me." Those whose parents modeled these competencies learned that such connection is possible and helpful.
Handling relationships is the ability to use one's recognition of emotions in others to guide one's interaction with them. Goleman speaks of "managing emotions in others." More current research speaks of "joint regulation of emotion." At times he seems to focus on the more overt aspects of influencing others. This could be seen and experienced by others as implying manipulation. In concert with recent research I would place primary emphasis on achieving mutual understanding and then letting resolution emerge organically from a relationship of trust and mutual purpose.

Personal Development & Change

I hope that based on this brief discussion of EQ and related matters you have a greater appreciation for how important our emotions are in shaping our attitudes, motivations, and actions. Those of us with a bright intellect, great ideas, and practical savvy must be able to sustain positively toned connections and interactions with others if we are to exercise effective leadership. From a developmental standpoint, the question is not do we have needs for EQ development; rather, it is what are these needs.

As discrete as the five domains of Goleman's model look conceptually, in actuality they are inextricably intertwined in the emotional life of the person. For each of us there is a unique idiographic profile and manifestation of EQ. Because our emotional life was initially constituted in the preverbal phase of life, much of it operates outside our conscious awareness. In fact, others may at times observe aspects of our social-emotional identify and behavior to which we are rather blind ("blind spots").

Therefore, when it comes to accessing a full and accurate awareness of our EQ tendencies, feedback from others can be helpful. And even before seeking stakeholder feedback it can also be helpful to work with a professional coach in order to maximize our capacity to "hear," process, and understand the feedback. An in-depth, psychologically based assessment of our personality and interpersonal orientation will help us identify the core features of our idiographic EQ profile, and it will enable us to make full and effective use of stakeholder feedback.

If you have specific questions on how to apply the ideas presented here in your company, please contact the author at bill.macaux@generativityllc.com.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA
Principal & Consulting Psychologist
Generativity LLC
Helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Responsible Leadership: Part Three

2012-02-21T09:28:00.000-05:00

In part one of this series we differentiated leader responsibility from leader accountability and argued for the primacy of the former. In part two, we described two kinds of normativity or oughtness, ethical and psychosocial, that have unique importance to leaders who hope to build a sustainable organization. In this final part of the series, I argue that it takes a special kind of culture to promote the development of responsible leaders, one that is caring, a culture of kindness.

A Few Key Ideas

Before making my case for a culture of kindness, I would like to briefly summarize some ideas and a progression of thought that has been implicit throughout this series. In a sense, it will take us from a logico-rational view to an affective-relational view of leader responsibility. However, my ultimate aim is to emphasize the essential interdependencies of IQ and EQ for those seeking to cultivate the practice of leader responsibility in their organizations.

Responsibility. On the one hand, contemporary notions of responsibility stem from ideas of autonomy and free agency. In theory, we can be held accountable because we are capable of acting responsibly, that is, with a cognizance of right and wrong and good and bad, and with the free will to conform our actions to what is right, proper, and good. This is a rational proposition about our nature as moral beings and about our capacity to act from a sense of ethical responsibility.

We attribute objectivity to ethical norms. When we say that we should always treat others as ends and never merely as means, we are stating an ethical principle which applies to all. There is a firmness and strictness in this formulation. Ethical principles, whether as law or company policy, are to be applied fairly and without bias. Nothing more quickly undercuts the credibility and integrity of ethics than a lack of fairness or consistency in their application.

Feeling. Notice that we characterize the ethical roots of responsibility by invoking a reflective state of mind and by focusing on ideas that have been passed down historically. We appeal to a person's rational mind and intellect, and for many if not most of us this course of calm reflection is sufficient to "make the case," to compel belief. Implicit in one's act of belief that validates this proposition is an endorsement of the oughtness of the underlying values, e.g., justness as fairness.

How is it that this belief, validation, and endorsement is clinched? At some point, it is the irresistible force of feeling, that is, intentional feeling, feeling that is "about something." Intellect and discursive thought take us only so far. Their positive role is to evoke an openness of mind, a receptively active mode of thought that avails us of insight. However, the clinching force is an intuitive, affectively-toned act of affirmation, "this is true, good, right, proper for humankind."

Development. Although temperament, which is colored by genetic makeup, affects one's judgment, the more stable patterns of attitude, motivation, and will are shaped by life experience. These qualities take form early in personality and relational predispositions, but they remain sufficiently malleable that we can modify them later in life through deliberate effort. When this is done in order to adaptively liberate us from self-limiting tendencies, we refer to it as personal development.

There would be no need for ethical and psychosocial norms if we were not free. Our actions would be governed by instinct. And there would be no need for psychosocial norms of development if we were not imperfect and subject to vulnerabilities and insecurities that can lead one to act inappropriately, perhaps out of egoistic motives or simply out of fear and anxiety. Prosocial personal development, then, is the person-based engine of ethical development and the path to leader responsibility.

Character. Patterns of good and proper conduct have, since the time of ancient Greece, been spoken of as virtuous character. Aristotle, one of the earliest Greek philosophers to address ethics, argued that we humans are social animals, and that among the most important markers of the good life is the capacity to form and sustain friendships. We may here regard the ideal of friendship as a prosocial virtue. The highest form of friendship occurs among those who jointly embrace "the greater good."

Leader responsibility emerges from character development. We see here how moral and psychosocial normativity are intertwined in the development of the leader. It begins in the infant-caregiver relationship, which provides a safe and secure base within which we first learn to trust and to communicate. From there we explore our world and discover our developing capabilities to function as an individual. Good parenting encourages formation of a positive, productive sense of identity, self as agent in the world.

Care. What began as an intellectual reflection on the nature of free agency and ethical responsibility has moved to a mixed plane of thought, feeling and action. The power of rational thought to compel belief registers as feeling, intentional feeling about what is true, good, and proper. The values that underlie our notions of responsibility and our ethical and psychosocial norms take hold through affective channels of understanding and insight. Openness to this path of character development is formed in relationships.

As parents and leaders we help shape the character of the next generation by adopting an attitude of care, attentive and active concern for the development of others. This normatively positive state of adjustment in adult life is called generativity. Generative leaders have come to know and accept themselves, their strengths, and their vulnerabilities. Their value-based commitment to principles (ethics) is internally motivated, personally meaningful, and serves as a reliable guide to action. Generative leaders express responsibility through attitudes, feelings, and actions of care.

Kindness. Notice that the capacity of a person to internalize and live from ethical principles implies the formation of an emotionally healthy, mature interior life. There is a subjective alertness and attunement to the feelings and experience of self and others that prompts an attitude of care and initiates the expression of care in action. And the quality of presence that encourages others, even anxious or guarded others, to freely express their feelings is kindness. In the spirit of such paradoxes as "less is more" and "give up control to get it," kindness proves to be a powerful catalyst of responsible leader development.

Kindness is a gentle, attentive, accepting regard for the other. It has been spoken of as "unconditional positive regard" by psychologist Carl Rogers and as "loving kindness" in the Buddhist tradition. Another model of kindness we shall draw upon below is "good-enough" parenting by British pediatrician Donald Winnicott. "Good-enough" may seem out of place in business where we regularly hear leaders exhort others to strive for excellence. As we shall see, however, kindness is potent, and "good-enough" can actually trump excellence when it comes to leadership development.

A Culture of Kindness

Some will say I am naive and that talk of kindness and drawing parallels between leader development and parenting is irrelevant. Among these critics are those who assert a more pessimistic view of humankind, which sees the one true source of motivation as self-interest. This is not the place to argue the point fully. I would simply point out that merely because self-interested motivation is more prevalent and the easier path does little to prove that kindness, generosity, and care are less essential to our nature. Moreover, it is even less an excuse for neglecting our kinder and more noble possibilities as a people.

That said, I will assume for this discussion that generativity (a concern for others and the next-generation) is a normatively positive path of adult development and a preferred alternative to stagnation (an egoistic and acquisitive stance that stunts potential for further emotional and spiritual growth). I shall also assume that the role of a leader who seeks to promote development of responsibility in his/her own life and practice, as well as in the careers of next-generation leaders requires a generative orientation toward developing leaders characterized by an attitude of care.

Given these assumptions, it seems to me that the parallel between parenting and leadership is not only plausible but appropriate. This will become more clear as we examine Winnicott's notion of good-enough parenting. It is a model that is grounded in a great deal of theory and observational data on what good parenting looks like and how it generates healthy psychosocial outcomes, i.e., thriving children, able to adaptively respond to life's challenges with resilience, resourcefulness, and success.

The first and most critical observation about healthy child development is that we really don't need to stoke the flames of achievement strivings; they are already burning at birth. We simply need to create the conditions for these strivings to emerge and take shape. The course of that emergence and shaping is determined in large part by the quality of interactions (relational dynamics) between child and caregiver. In this regard, it is important to note that most of this interaction is nonverbal; just as 70% of the emotional meaning in adult interactions is conveyed through nonverbal behavior!

The second observation: All children need to attain a fundamental sense of security in their relationship with their caregiver. This happens when the caregiver is attentive and seeks to understand what the infant is signalling through her nonverbal expressions of emotion. The caregiver demonstrates that he/she can be a reliable presence, available when needed, usually able to recognize what the infant is "saying," and then responds in ways that resonate with the interior life of the child. The infant sees that the caregiver "gets it." She feels understood, safe. A secure base has been established.

The third observation: When a caregiver-infant dyad has jointly created a relationship in which they are able to communicate with one another, the child feels more free and inclined to venture our from the secure base and explore his/her surrounding environment. This liberates the strivings of the child to learn and attain a sense of competence and mastery. When the child experiences setbacks and frustrations, he/she has the reassurance that he/she can return to the safe harbor of the relationship where the caregiver can help him/her cope with the distress and then venture out again.

The fourth observation: A parent need not be perfect. In fact, the most helpful parent is simply good enough. Children must know that support, affection, and sustenance are available, that their caregivers are there for them. However it is normal also to be out of synch at times, and for there to be tensions, even temporary ruptures in the relationship. A secure relationship is one that knows how to repair and restore connection when it is lost. Good enough parents do not overprotect. They do not spare their children the lessons that can only be learned from suffering the consequences of their missteps.

The sixth observation: When a child learns that connecting and communicating with others is possible, and that open and free expression of emotions (even anger) is permissible, that setbacks are survivable, and that we can sometimes work things out better by involving others, they are more likely to be able to form open and effective relationships later in life. The joint regulation of emotion by the infant-caregiver dyad becomes a paradigm for coping internalized by the developing child. The assumption of trust and the potential to form open and deep relationships is also adopted as an expectation.

The final observation: Some of us don't receive good-enough parenting, and many of us experience something less than the ideal. As a result, we may learn (implicitly from nonverbal communication) that expression of our feelings is not always welcome, and that by suppressing them we are better able to maintain connection with our caregiver. This may leave us with inhibitions that persist into adult life and affect our readiness to deal with emotions and the affective dynamics of relationships. Great news: We can, through personal development, usually overcome such inhibitions. It's never too late.

Conclusion

I don't wish to strain this argument for the parallel between good-enough parenting and good-enough leader development. I hope the observations summarized above are sufficient to stimulate productive reflection on how you might provide a secure base to support the ongoing development of others.

The analogy between these personal and professional instances of generative care build on familiar mental models. As a frame of reference it exemplifies the relevance that developmental discussions often have for both sides of life, at work and outside of work. Cross-pollination is often possible.

I want to reiterate that kindness does not imply permissiveness. Nor am I recommending a culture of artificial harmony at the expense of candor. Just as parents must at times exercise firmness and express demands of their children, leaders too must adjust their tone and actions to suit the needs of the situation.

Having said that, as a fundamental empowering condition in one's relationships with developing leaders, I have found that nothing more quickly establishes trust and openness than kindness. Absent a measure of kindness we are all more likely to erect and maintain defenses, to act out of fear or anxiety, all of which tend to compromise integrity. So, try a little kindness. I think you'll find it's contagious!

If you have specific questions on how to apply the ideas presented here in your company, please contact the author at bill.macaux@generativityllc.com.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA
Principal & Consulting Psychologist
Generativity LLC
Helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Responsible Leadership: Part Two

2012-01-30T12:59:00.000-05:00

Strength of character is not genetically determined. Responsible leadership is not guaranteed by taking an oath. Human beings are imperfect creatures who can only strive for virtue. In that striving, we do enjoy freedom of thought, will, and action. Just as you chose to be a leader, you can choose a path of professionally relevant personal development that helps you become a responsible leader.

TwoKinds of Normativity

Responsible leaders hold themselves accountable to certain principles of conduct. These principles express a kind of normativity or oughtness, an imperative to act inaccordance with some notion of what is good. In particular, there are two kinds of human good at stake in organizations to which leaders with fiduciary duties must hold themselves accountable, ethical andpsychosocial.

Ethical normsconcern that domain of human conduct in which actions may be characterized as goodor bad (intrinsic moral value) and right or wrong (compliant or noncompliant) insofaras they promote moral propriety. Standards of moral propriety are often given or handed down through cultural traditions of belief and value. Suchis the case with religion.

Someargue that moral knowledge is acquired through reason and clarified throughreason-giving. Others believe that moral norms are known intuitively, firstfelt as good or bad and only afterwards rationalized. As a practical matter, both intuition and reason would seem to play arole.

In any case, in a democratic society, with its ethnic and religious pluralism, we have little choice but to strive for an overlapping consensus on what is good and right. In doing so, we aim for common ground, preserving sufficient liberty for dissenters to be “in the right” while not violating their distinctively framed version of moral goods.

Concrete examples of such ethical norms include: Treat each person as an end and never merely as a means. Be truthful and honest with one another. Keep commitments you make to others and honor your agreements. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Such norms help us keep our bearings, and often we first notice "drift" in feelings, i.e. "this just doesn't feel right."

These norms emerge historically. The process is not without social-political conflict, but most would agree it has been largely successful. It serves as a model for organizations. These generally accepted norms provide a sense of objectivity. They are valid for all of us despite our differences and provide a legitimate basis for policy and judging rightness.

The second domain of normativity, psychosocial, pertains to human development. Its norms focus on what is healthy or unhealthy, adaptive or maladaptive insofar as it promotes prosocial behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels of interaction. Psychosocial norms concern patterns of attitude, motivation, and behavior that underlie and enable ethical conduct.

For example, if one is to regularly treat others as an end and not merely as a means, one must be able to empathize, resonate with their feelings, and recognize what they need in order to thrive. Yes, it may be a business relationship based on agreed upon roles and accountabilities, but we are all persons with needs for dignity, autonomy, and support.

By saying psychosocial norms are about human development we imply that prosocial behavior is the consequence of personal learning. Of course, few of us have lived such a blissful life as to be without insecurities or vulnerabilities that may hinder prosocial conduct. Therefore, because leadership is elective we have a responsibility to address the "inside work" of leadership.

As leaders we owe it to ourselves and those we lead to do some penetrating self-examination. This is where we discover just how fully psychosocial and ethical norms intermingle. In seeking to re-examine who we are, we inevitably encounter what we value, the goods that define our ethics. We also discover the vulnerabilities that can make it difficult for us to consistently do the right thing.

Undertaking a career in leadership gives us good reason to sustain a course of personal development and resolve any "chinks" or imperfections that may impede our capacity to lead responsibly. This involves more deeply appreciating our own less conscious sources of motivation and learning how to cultivate a reflective function that frees us from habitual and self-limiting patterns of behavior.

From this, we become more able to help others, to be a source of encouragement for them, to engage in "difficult" conversations that lead to break-throughs in learning. We come to know ourselves better (warts and all), we develop a stronger internal locus of control. We become stronger as persons, more resilient, more true to our values, more able to do the right thing.

The expression, "taking it to the next level," is apt here. It is a special kind of self-examination that best facilitates such next-level development. See my blog, Executive Coaching: Kinds & Qualifications, for more on psychologically-based coaching, a professionally guided, assessment-based process specifically designed to promote next-level development.

In our next and final part of this series I will argue that kindness - the overt expression of compassion - is co-original with self-interest in our nature and vitally important if we are to build humane, effective, and sustainable organizations. We will consider why this theme is so often neglected in leadership and the high price we pay when we do so. Recommendations for action will be provided.

If you have specific questions on how to apply the ideas presented here in your company, please contact the author at bill.macaux@generativityllc.com.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA

Principal & Consulting Psychologist

Generativity LLC

Helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Responsible Leadership: Part One

2012-01-24T11:20:00.000-05:00

Words like responsibility and accountability bear special importance when applied to leadership. They are weighty and imply notions of fiduciary duty. In this series on Responsible Leadership I clarify what these qualities of leadership mean, how they manifest in actual leader behavior, and how they are cultivated in the process of leader development.

One of the most comprehensive ways of conceptualizing responsible leadership is through the lens of sustainability. The concept of sustainability is best visualized in the Venn diagram of the so-called triple bottom line. Sustainability is the area in which social, environmental, and economic interests overlap.

Any of us who have given serious thought to this ideal of responsibility soon recognize that it is a daunting standard. We can readily envision a well-intended leader confronting rabid advocates and diverse stakeholder groups from all sides.

The last thing a leader needs when trying to address such a complicated balance of interests is chiding from the sidelines. Even those who recognize that they have room for improvement are suspicious of others who speak with a tone of moral authority about fiduciary duty and social responsibility.

Therefore, in this three-part series on responsible leadership I would invite the reader to play the role of constructive self-critic. We can all afford to periodically take stock of our leadership challenges and even to recall errors in conduct or judgment. We may not get do-overs, but such reflection may identify opportunities to grow and develop.

Our Goals for the Series

I shall try to achieve some rather ambitious goals in this series:

First, I will highlight the important differences between leader responsibility and leader accountability and argue for the primacy of the former.

Second, I will describe two kinds of normativity or oughtness (ethical & psychosocial) that are fundamental to responsible leadership and sustainable organizations.

Third, I will indicate how ethical and psychosocial factors are inextricably intermingled in the development of responsible leaders.

Finally, I will argue that kindness is co-original with self-interest, and that it is required if organizations are to be humane, service oriented, and sustainable.

In part one we shall differentiate leader responsibility from leader accountability. In doing so, we will consider the inner and outer sources of motivation, which foreshadow discussions in part two concerning the role of psychosocial factors in a leader's personal development of responsibility.

Part two will explore two kinds of normativity that underlie a responsible leader's identity and ethics. Here we see how deeply entangled moral and psychosocial development are. We also begin to see indications of just how essential relational dynamics are to the life of an organization.

Finally, in part three we examine the kinder, affectively-toned relational values that underlie leader power. We will see that a responsible leader is an authentic leader, who realizes the mission of the organization and its stakeholders by winning their trust, loyalty, and commitment to persevere and adapt to change.

Responsibility versus Accountability

Why do we hear so many strident demands for accountability today? Some of these demands are voiced in a shrill tone of righteous indignation by stakeholders whose leaders have fallen short of their fiduciary duty to serve the interests of those they represent. These are the voices of plaintiffs.

By contrast, accountability can be regarded as a challenge, boldly vaunted as a gauntlet whose purpose is to separate winners from losers: "Give me accountability for the outcomes, and I will gladly be judged by my results!" Brimming with confidence, this is the swagger of the competitor.

Despite differences in tone and prompting motivations, both kinds of accountability are imposed from without. The constituencies who generate them hope and expect they will be internalized and "owned" by those to whom they are directed. Why? Because such ownership signals an important difference in attitude, which reassures constituents.

Historical perspective: In the tradition of moral philosophy from the Enlightenment forward, those acting from accountability to external authority are said to be moved by heteronomous forces, the demands of others. By contrast, those who act from internal motivations, self-elected principles and value-based promptings, are said to act as autonomous moral agents.

Contemporary society: While it is normal and appropriate for leaders to act from both, we usually rank autonomous judgement as a higher, more advanced level of moral development. Compliance with law and contractual terms is seen as "table stakes." Acting from principle is what really distinguishes exemplary leaders.

Responsibility: So, I shall define leader responsibility as an attribute of the person rooted in deeply held beliefs and values about what is good, right, and proper. Responsibility is guided by principles of fairness and justice but also conditioned by feelings of concern for the interests of others, even future generations, whose well-being leaders affect through their actions. More on these feelings of concern later.

Understandably, when getting to know a leader we may initially look for evidence of person-based values of responsibility in their actions. Trust at this point is conditional upon demonstration. Over time, as a reliable pattern appears, we form enduring bonds of trust, trust in the integrity of the person as leader.

As stakeholders, it is important that our trust in the leader broadens to include more than his or her personal integrity, judgment, and practical competence. We must also trust that he or she will reliably act in the common interests of all stakeholders. "All" implies impartiality, an ethic of fairness critical to winning the allegiance of followers.

As responsible leaders we impose principles of action upon ourselves. These actions serve practical and instrumental ends but are justified because of the common goods they secure for stakeholders. Of course, we would expect to observe a high degree of overlap between responsibilities and accountabilities.

We expect responsible leaders to act intelligently and adaptively, to comply with the letter and the spirit of the norms to which they are accountable. Indeed, a sense of responsibility may often cause leaders to act in ways that serve the interest of those they represent, which they (stakeholders) themselves may not have anticipated. In so doing, leaders go above and beyond in ways that inspire admiration.

Another manifestation of autonomy in responsible leaders is their inclination to constructively challenge their superiors (e.g., the board or top management). At times responsible leaders may see that proposed accountabilities could actually do more harm than good by inadvertently putting common goods at risk.

In summary then, accountabilities are important to specify as a matter of good governance. However, one can also see that they are not sufficient to ensure responsible leadership in the sense defined above. It is based on these considerations that I attribute primacy to leader responsibility.

Next, we shall examine two kinds of normativity, ethical and psychosocial, which guide the judgment of responsible leaders. We will explore the dynamics of development that shape character, and we will emphasize that this shaping process continues for those who remain open to growth and development.

If you have specific questions on how to apply the ideas presented here in your company, please contact the author at bill.macaux@generativityllc.com.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA

Principal & Consulting Psychologist

Generativity LLC

Helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Executive Coaching: Kinds & Qualifications

2012-01-05T11:16:00.000-05:00

Executive coaching has become a big business attracting a variety of service providers whose skills and capabilities differ widely. This article helps you more intelligently match your needs with the appropriate kind of coaching capabilities.

Clearing up the Confusion

Executive coaching. Everybody knows what it is, right? One might think so given the way people toss the term about with a presumptive air of mutual understanding, not to mention the fact that it has become a $2BB industry. But if you ask people to specify what they have in mind, you may be surprised at the variety of needs, presenting situations, and service providers that are described.

I hope to clarify what in fact passes for executive coaching today. First, however, let's observe a few constants in meaning that are at least implied: 1) Executive coaching is a consulting service intended for people in leadership roles. 2) It is a service that can be expensive and that aims to promote competence (skill, judgement, wisdom). 3) It promises practical business impacts.

Even at a rather general level of definition, we can agree that these service offerings tout an impressive value proposition. Most corporate consumers are prudent shoppers, so they will ask more questions and they will "kick the tires" of potential service providers. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to distinguish categories of coaching as guidance to those who are shopping for such services.

Specifically, I will describe four distinct kinds of one-on-one developmental intervention that are called coaching. One of them should be part of every organization's human resource development (HRD) strategy and be provided internally. The other three involve the use of external expert resources.

My point of view and authority on the topic is based upon over 18 years of experience in playing the role of coach, counselor, and consultant to management. I have done this as a managing director and senior consultant with large firms (RHR International & Right Management), and as a practitioner in my own firm (Generativity LLC).

Coaching: Its Purpose and Promise

Google it and you will find over 36 million entries that define executive coaching. Therefore, it would be impossible to define coaching without simplifying the essential differences that distinguish its various kinds. I will set aside the descriptor "executive" since it adds little to the functional meaning of coaching and mostly identifies the target population; in that respect it is more embellishment than description.

As you will observe, the kinds of coaching are often complimentary, so my purpose is not to argue that one is more valuable or helpful than another. Rather, suitability of one kind or another is a question of fit with the client's need. That said, a common feature of most coaching engagements, especially those provided by outside experts, is that they aim to help leaders at critical moments in their career.

Astute management recognizes when individual leaders are about to face or are already facing daunting levels of challenge. Management's responsibility at this time is to support their leaders, to help them maximize their personal potential for success. However, in addition to promoting individual leader development, management hopes to enhance the impact leaders have on their followers.

Given the broad systemic effects of leadership and the consequential impacts of leader development on organizational sustainability, management has every right to see its role in sponsoring coaching as an act of good governance. The board and other stakeholders should be reassured that management is building organizational capacity. They should also be encouraged that management is mitigating risks of failure or under-performance when assigning developing leaders to new challenges.

And from the standpoint of HRD strategy, HR leaders are well advised to take their role in managing coaching engagements with a medical paradigm in view: Just as ignorance of pharmacology may lead to medication errors, so a confused understanding of coaching may result in "prescription" errors. At minimum a flawed prescription may be ineffective, at worst it may be harmful.

In this connection, I would refer the HRD leader to Steven Berglas' informative article, "Very Real Dangers of Executive Coaching" (HBR, June 2002), which cautions management on choosing providers lacking appropriate qualifications, especially when dealing with a distressed or faltering executive. In this regard, see my recent blog on executive health.

Coaching: Its Kinds and Providers

As mentioned above, there is one kind of coaching that should be provided by those supervising the development of leaders within the company. Although some argue that this is uniquely relevant for the company's hi-potential, next-generation leaders, I have found that potential often manifests because of effective supervisory encouragement, feedback, and nurturing. So, let's turn to that important form of coaching first.

Managerial coaching is provided by one's supervisor and focuses on building technical skills and practical managerial savvy. It aims to advance the productive capacity of staff in their functional area of the business and to help them learn about how to get things done through others and within the firm's organizational structure and dynamics. This is accomplished in periodic 1:1 meetings.

It is not something that all managers do naturally or do well. In fact, in recent annual McKinsey surveys on talent development it has ranked as one of the biggest "gaps" in most companies. My advice here would be that you do an honest gut check, and if you believe such a gap exists in your firm, take action. A couple of supervisor work-shops can do a lot to promote this skill and discipline at minimum expense.

Skills coaching is often provided by an outside expert in some functional area of management. Beyond the focal skill areas, their support will often touch on interpersonal relations and navigating organization dynamics. Such advice-giving is almost unavoidable as the expert helps the coachee contextualize and apply skills like Six Sigma. 1:1 meetings often run in parallel with group workshops.

I have found that by tethering this kind of coaching to specific, strategically important projects (action learning), a cohort of coachees can not only hone their skills but also leverage group dynamics to address issues of implementation. One of the best ways of mastering knowledge and skill is to teach it, so often you may be able to deploy alumni of such a program to further spread skill and management savvy.

Governance coaching can often take on the appearance of mentoring because it usually involves seasoned, senior leaders from outside the organization who function as a sounding board and source of perspective. Interaction usually focuses on strategic matters, personal presence, and "judgment calls" involving relations with the board, the "street," merger integration, and various aspects of fiduciary duty.

This role has been played by management "gurus" like Ram Charan, but there are also consultancies, whose bios feature former CEOs or division presidents who may bring experience, perspective, and practical savvy. Here the interpersonal style of the coach is quite important. Particularly important are listening skills, humility, and sufficient maturity to resist imposing one's ideas or will upon the client.

Psychologically-based coaching is provided by a well-trained professional (i.e. licensed psychologist) who has expert skills in assessment and person-centered development practices. This intervention aims to facilitate the growth or the adaptive transition of a leader to a new role (upside) or to remediate problems with a faltering executive. The focus is on catalyzing change by tapping internal resources of the person.

Some tout the use of 360 feedback tools, the Myers-Briggs, or other instruments. This approach is seldom sufficient on its own to prompt deep learning and change, and it can be ineffective and risky as an intervention for faltering executives. Such techniques may supplement an in-depth, individual assessment provided by a psychologist, but don't mistake them for psychologically-based coaching competence.

Provider Qualifications: Basic considerations

The effectiveness of coaching (like the effectiveness of psychotherapy) is heavily reliant upon quality of relationship, the dynamics of interaction through which coach and coachee relate. This includes verbal and nonverbal modes of communication. Other qualities of the coach are important, such as the coach's apparent credibility, depth of experience and insight, and his or her sensitivity and interpersonal style.

This constellation of fit factors is what people mean when they speak of "chemistry." To be clear, this does not mean one must "love" everything about one's coach. Effective coaches are often known for their capacity to offer constructive criticism and feedback that may sting upon first hearing. They must, however, be respectful, sensitive, and honest.

There may be some exceptions to the quality-of-relationship rule. For example, in some cases, especially with technical skills coaching, the relational characteristics of the coach may be less critical than technical competence or intellectual brilliance. Most of us will tolerate quirks and oddities of personality if there is an important practical payoff we obtain from the relationship.

In most other forms of coaching, quality of relationship is vital. Why? Because the development at stake entails deeper levels of discussion, disclosure, trust, and mutual regard than we find in matter-of-fact daily commerce. From it profound insight and personal growth emerge manifesting in genuine self-confidence, emotional maturity, clarification of values, and prudent judgment - qualities that distinguish a leader.

Some Final Advice

When constructive stakeholder feedback and effective managerial coaching is not working, and when adaptive development stalls or deteriorates, it may indicate needs for outside intervention. On the one hand, perhaps some specialized skills coaching is needed. On the other hand, you may also observe warning signs that suggest different needs.

In the table below, you will observe Warning Signs that a leader is approaching or perhaps beyond the level of challenge that he or she can currently handle. I address this phenomenon more fully in my recent blog on the Challenge-Development Curve. In any case, should these signs manifest it may indicate a need for psychologically-based coaching.

Signs of Building Stress & Declining Resources

Specific Indicators

· Pattern of declining leadership/managerial performance

· Noticeably less effective overall cognitive functioning

· Myopic point of view, lacking context and perspective

· Nonverbal style/messages are more negative/troubled

· Emotional reactions are out of proportion to the issue

· Defensive reactions increase in frequency and intensity

· Significant changes in mood, demeanor, appearance

· Especially in areas expected to be strengths

· Problem solving, judgment, decision making

· Constricted, less imaginative/open, out of touch

· Tone conveys tension, anxiety, and impatience

· Quick to anger, discouragement, and frustration

· Rationalization, blaming, denial, and retreat

· Personal presence lacks energy, focus, freshness

When a developing leader seems to be "stuck," perhaps exhibiting higher levels of anxiety, defensiveness, and/or mixed motivation, there may be underlying psychosocial factors present that are constraining development. Therefore, it may be prudent to recommend an "executive assessment" of the individual. This assessment will better inform your next-step deliberations about whether coaching is indicated, and if so what kind of coaching is most appropriate.

It is important that this assessment be framed in a positive way with the leader, preferably as a means of helping the leader take stock of his or her situation. In such a context, the psychologist would treat the details of the assessment session as confidential while also helping the struggling leader consider ways to discuss his or her needs openly and honestly in a facilitated three-way discussion with management.

* * *

At this point I hope it is clear to the reader that: 1) coaching can be a timely and effective intervention when used properly; 2) it is important to thoughtfully diagnose the presenting situation and match the true need to the proper kind of coaching and provider; 3) coaching should be seen as part of your overall HRD and talent management strategy; and 4) sponsorship of coaching can be an important expression of management's fiduciary role in ensuring organizational sustainability.

If you have specific questions on how to apply the ideas presented here in your company, please contact the author at bill.macaux@generativityllc.com.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA

Principal & Consulting Psychologist

Generativity LLC

Helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Executive Selection: Too Important to Fail

2012-01-03T15:07:00.000-05:00

You have probably heard reports from management studies that indicate up to 40% of new executive hires fail within the first 18 months. It does not need to be that way!

The world has changed. Just a few decades ago, we functioned in rather independent national economies, markets evolved more gradually, and strategic assumptions and operational systems were more stable. In recent years we have become increasingly reliant upon management agility and timely information and decision making. Technology has increased the power and leverage of management to act and effect change quickly. Therefore, the human capabilities of each new hire into management, especially at middle and senior levels, has become vitally important.

Spending is tight. We all know that financial management policies in today’s economy have also changed due to the disruptive effects of social instability (post-9/11), the housing market collapse, and the consequent effects on financial institutions and economies world-wide. Most companies have become quite conservative about investing, spending, and most of all, hiring. Each new managerial and executive hire is expected to have an impact and prove herself soon! This new normal makes it even more critical than ever that we get it right on hiring.

High failure rates are avoidable. Management studies indicate up to 40% of new executive hires fail within the first 18 months. Perhaps you have witnessed such failures play out firsthand. If so, you have observed directly just how costly these failures are in terms of direct recruiting, start-up, and severance costs for the new hire, lost time and productivity for the organization, and potential losses of confidence in management. Hiring will never be fool-proof, but these high failure rates are avoidable!

What’s the answer? Having over 15 years of experience in executive hiring, and having seen successes and failures across many different companies and industry sectors, I have learned a lot about how to improve success in hiring. In this brief report, I will highlight what we know about what contributes to failure and how to get it right! If you follow this advice, I assure you that you will increase the validity and reliability of your selection process. I am so confident in the process that I often offer a money-back guarantee to new clients trying it for the first time.

Sources of Failure

Among the most common mistakes that management makes inhiring are the following:

· Waitingtoo long, and then rushing the process. Adding the right people at almost any time will improve organizationalperformance and productivity.

· Stretchingincumbents too far without adequate “scaffolding.” The halo-effect of prior successes leads managementto overestimate readiness of hi-potentials.

· Focusingtoo narrowly on technical competencies. Management often attributes too much to IQ and so-called hard skills,and too little to person-based soft skills.

· Reluctanceto use experts. Ironically, management may spend freely to get ideas (McKinsey) but pinchpennies to assess the talent who must implement ideas.

· Blind attachmentto competency models. A more individualized, idiographic assessment catches fit-factorsthat escape the wide mesh of such models.

· The assumptionof perfection. Although inadvertent,management assumes more readiness of the candidate in the start-upphase than they have a right to.

· Ambivalenceon change. Management can overstate their appetite for change when hiring, leading thecandidate to pursue too much too soon.

· Lack ofcorrective feedback. Management often does not provide new hire withtimely stakeholder feedback, candid advice, and talk time.

· Lack ofpeer support. Management may lavishattention on new hires, neglect incumbent peers, and thereby spawn non-constructive competition.

· Waitingtoo long to intervene. Signs offaltering often appear early (within 90 days), if you are attentive, and can be fatal if not addressed decisively.

The Fit-Factor Model

For any new hire you should use a fit-factor model to prompt and guide your discussion of the role and planning for the selection process. Although management generally errs in the direction of a hard-factor bias, getting a valid appraisal of a candidate’s hard skills and experience (item1 below) is undoubtedly critical. Your executive recruiter and reference checks should be designed to help with this aspect of the process. A rigorous interview process, perhaps including some in vivo, case-based problem solving also adds power to the appraisal process.

Note that item 2, although closely related to item 1, emphasizes the need to get in-depth reports from stakeholders who are able to share first-hand experience of the candidate’s approach to work. These sources of validation are particularly effective when they focus on projects representative of the kinds of problems the candidate will face in your company if hired.

Item 3 is best addressed by means of an in-depth, psychologically-based assessment of the candidate. This final step illuminates the fit of the candidate as a person, as well as his/her maturity, vulnerabilities, and development needs. The assessment includes two dimensions not commonly included in traditional candidate assessment reports: Reflective Function and Normative Orientation.

This is not the occasion to elaborate these dimensions. Suffice it to say that Reflective Function indicates a dimension of personal maturity and development, which is directly related to one’s capacity to manage relationships, resolve conflict, and restore strained relations after periods of difficulty. Normative Orientation is a dimension of development that concerns one’s moral maturity and personal development as it pertains to functioning as a responsible leader and fiduciary. Both have become increasingly relevant in our current business climate.

1. Technicaland functional knowledge, experience, and expertise:

a. Industryexpertise (insight into history, trends, future possibilities)

b. Personalcredibility (track record, thought leadership, command of issues)

c. Situation-specificexperience (growth, turn-around, mergers, big changes)

d. Functionaleffectiveness (innovation, leading change, building capability)

2. Demonstratedskill and efficacy in addressing our strategic imperatives:

a. Validationof practical savvy, competence, resourcefulness

b. Capacityto adapt to new situations, players, and challenges

c. First-handreports of actual successes, the ups, downs, and outcomes

d. Identifiedvulnerabilities, compensatory strategies, leadership style

3. Personalprofile of psychological characteristics and normative orientation:

a. CognitiveStyle

b. Emotion& Motivation

c. InterpersonalRelations

d. ReflectiveFunction

e. Managerial& Leadership Style

f. NormativeOrientation

Selection Planning and Process Flow

This is not the occasion to discuss the overall talent management strategy within which a selection process is embedded. Here I will simply highlight a step-wise procedure for improving the validity and reliability of your selection process. A more detailed, company-specific plan will emerge from these basic process steps.

First, in addition to engaging an executive recruiter (internal or external), involve a consulting psychologist with experience in executive selection. This person will be able to help you apply the fit-factor model to your organization and hiring situation. The initial consultation may be with the head of HR and should involve discussion of the organizational context, the strategic imperatives of the firm, the specific business needs the new hire will be expected to address, and the challenges a new hire is likely to face upon joining the organization and engaging the stakeholders associated with the role and mission he/she will be undertaking.

Second, upon establishing the qualifications and “chemistry” of this relationship, the head of HR should introduce the consulting psychologist to key players in the selection process. This might include a meeting with the hiring manager initially to determine what he/she feels are the critical contributions that the person in this role must make, the time frame within which the candidate should be expected to register impact, the leading indicators of constructive engagement and impact, and the hiring manager’s expectations for communicating with and supporting the new hire during the first 90 days.

Third, the consulting psychologist should be invited back to present his/her recommendations for a selection and integration process. This is an opportunity for the consulting psychologist to present and validate his/her understandings of the business needs and the organizational culture, and the leadership style that will be required in order to effectively engage stakeholders and achieve business success. This is an interactive meeting with the head of HR, the hiring manager, and any other members of senior management whose opinions and insights are desired.

This generally sparks dialogue, which leads to clarification of: 1) the firm’s or unit’s strategic imperatives (key business needs that must be addressed); 2) the most critical leadership factors (capabilities of the individual leader); and 3) the overall candidate assessment strategy, including interview process, plans for case-based exercises, in-depth psychological assessment, and plans for summarizing assessment data and facilitating selection decision and start-up planning.

Fourth, upon gaining agreement on design for the overall candidate assessment process, it will be important to coordinate with the executive recruiter to ensure alignment on the candidate profile and selection process. The executive recruiter may have helpful input and suggestions to further enhance the impact of the new approach. Moreover, it will be important that the recruiter is fully aware of how to properly shape expectations of the hiring process for candidates.

Finally, upon completion of the selection process, it will be very important for the HR lead to maintain an oversight role to ensure that all parties play their appropriate role in the start-up process. Even before this point, and as the final selection decisions are being made, the selection committee and particularly hiring managers must carefully specify the potential “gap” issues in fit (there is no such thing as a perfect candidate) and the associated priorities for development and support of the candidate during the first 6 months. The most immediate focus should be placed on activities that will occur within the first 90 days, such as joint interpretation of assessment results (psychologist & new hire), start-up coaching and mentoring, and plans for engaging stakeholders (including a stakeholder feedback process).

If you have specific questions on how to apply the ideaspresented here to your company’s hiring needs, please feel free to contact theauthor at bill.macaux@generativityllc.comor 617.312.5305.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA

Consulting Psychologist

Generativity LLC

Helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Executive Health: Generativity vs Stagnation

2011-12-20T17:00:00.000-05:00

In recent years we have been learning more and more about how mind, body, and spirit interact to affect one's health and promote adaptive development. This is typically characterized as a "holistic" or "ecological" view of health. In this article I invite executive readers to reflect on what they are doing to care for themselves, to promote their resilience, stamina, and productive capacity as leaders.

Are you ready for the New Year? For some the honest answer will be no, notyet, but I will be. Others, feeling thateven this answer expresses more readiness than they feel, may say, "Are you kidding? I am still licking my wounds from 2011."

The question, after all, does not reallyconcern the 2012 plans you completed in the fall does it? It is more about your feelings of readinessto take on a fresh, year-long challenge that you know will bring uncertainty and issues,and will require of you and your people a great deal of effort, skill, stamina,and resilience. It is a fire-in-the-belly question. That’s why it is so importantto make space between past and future for renewal.

It is not possible to promote the sustainable performanceand development of others - generative leadership - until we have first returned ourselves to a state ofsecurity and well-being. When depleted and facing stiff headwinds we instinctivelyconstrict our focus to the immediate and necessary next-steps. That make-it-to-the-finish mindset, understandable in the 4^th quarter, is hardly the state of mind tolaunch bold starts in the New Year.

Thiscyclical phenomenon is not unique to enterprises or even to our currentera. Indeed, throughout history we have foundways through religion and culture to examine our vulnerabilities and celebrate ourcapacities to regenerate. We enter sucha season now.

Exhaustion and Exhilaration

As we approach year endings and new beginnings, many feelexuberance and satisfaction with all they have accomplished. Often accomplished at the expense of greatstress and strain, we can nonetheless feel rewarded professionally,emotionally, and financially. For othersthe year may have felt more like a protracted scene from the life of Sisyphus,that poor soul in Greek myth, who is compelled to roll a huge bolder up a hillonly to see it roll back down, and to do so for eternity. Let’s hope that is a very small minority, butin either case a horizon of further challenge looms upon which, in time, it willbe helpful for us all to reflect.

In these moments of reflection upon what has been and what willbe we must attend with more than our rational mind, for it is a rather narrow band of ouroverall experience. It will be helpful tonotice fatigue and strain, the need for rest and regeneration, those sensations which only our body, now out of the harness, can report. We will recognize the difference between theso-called “good” tired, which has purchased important gains, and the unrequitedeffort that merely leaves us feeling spent. Kind and patient attention to our somatic experience, our emotions, andour thoughts informs us of our needs for care and renewal.

And what if we find no such needs for care and renewal? A reasonable and adaptivehypothesis is that if we find no residual stress and strain, it is probablybecause we have missed something and not because there is none. Try again.

Distress and Impairment

It has been estimated that up to 15% of workingexecutives could be considered psychologically distressed; really not so badwhen you consider the prevalence of mental disorders in the general populationis over 26%. That said, we shoulddistinguish distress from impairment insofar as the latter implies an inabilityto perform one’s job duties, and often a more serious and chronic source ofvulnerability requiring sustained clinical treatment.

Distress, by comparison, refers here totime-limited adaptive issues that may adversely affect some aspect of theexecutive's personal and professional functioning but can most often be overcomewith brief treatment and personal development counseling or coaching. Distress for executives may arise from: 1) work-relatedstressors such as time-pressures, heavy workloads, unrealistic demands, andrelational conflicts; 2) the broader social-economic context such as a downeconomy and associated fears of job security; and 3) personal issues such asmarital problems, depression, anxiety, and feelings of failure and frustration in one's career.

Whatever the combinationof such troubles affecting the executive, they will typically have an impact oncognitive functioning, emotional stability, and practical effectiveness. Arguably, the post-2008 financial crises and cascadingeconomic repercussions have only amplified anxieties at work and at home formany people, even those in the more privileged executive ranks.

Professional Resources

It can be helpful to distinguish between stress and strain when addressing health issues. In mechanics stress is defined as "force per area," and strain is defined as "deformation of a solid due to stress." By analogy, in our context we might define stress as a state of growing mental and emotional pressure or tension, which becomes dis-stress when it exceeds our capacities to cope adaptively. Strain, on the other hand, may be defined as the physical deterioration caused by rising levels of stress over time. Therefore, we must consider both physical and psychological well-being when we speak of executive health.

With this distinction in mind, here are some resources you might consider as you self-appraise your personal health and identify needs for care (self-care and professional care) and development in the year ahead:

Of course, all adults should be getting an annual physicaland monitoring their vital measures of physical health (weight, blood pressure,cholesterol levels, health screenings etc.). For a more thorough exam you might consider the Johns Hopkins executivehealth program, a day-long health assessment emphasizing prevention (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/executive_health/).

For acute distress, psychological counseling and psychotherapy have been shown to be effective in 70% of cases, so don't hesitate to use this resource. It almost always yields gains in personal growth (self-awareness, self-esteem, etc.) in addition to eliminating troubling symptoms. For psychiatric health (impairment conditions) the Menninger Clinic offers a program for professionals in crisis, including addiction problems and other more chronic conditions. Treatment there may involve a stay of several weeks, and it aims to restore function and equip people with improved coping skills (http://www.menningerclinic.com/p-professionals/index.htm).

Those looking for a more holistic approach to development might consider themindfulness based stress reduction programs developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn. They have attracted business and professional people seeking personal developmentthrough a meditation based discipline, which places emphasis upon mind-body interactions. Aversion of this program tailored to the needs of executives is the Mindful Leadership workshop originally developedat the UMass Mindfulness Center (http://www.instituteformindfulleadership.org/InstMindLead_FINAL_web_-_Copy.pdf.).

Of course, a more regularly available source of local support you should consider in times of reflective self-examination is an executive coach, preferably one who is also professionally trained and licensed as apsychologist. The advantages of thisoption: First, you form a relationshipand history that allows you to call upon him/her as needed with the assurancethat he/she knows who you are and what you are dealing with. Second, this person is qualified to recognizeneeds for referrals and will likely have a broad familiarity with executivedevelopment resources that may be helpful in the course of your ongoing growth anddevelopment.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA

Consulting Psychologist

Generativity LLC

helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Succeeding in the Face of Challenge

2011-12-16T10:32:00.000-05:00

By the time you have arrived at the executive-level you have proven you are smart and that you have the practical savvy to get things done. Still, you may find yourself in challenging situations that leave you feeling overwhelmed; smart and savvy are just not enough. In this article we examine a "third" dimension of development that can be vital to navigating such crises.

Four months into a new role in a new company and Jack was feeling worries and fears that he could not yet admit to. A long distance move, leaving an employer where he was a known factor, he began to wonder, Was this a mistake?

An All-to-Familiar Scene

When this creeping awareness dawns with undeniable force in Jack's awareness, chances are his unease has also been noticed by management. If they are not questioning his competence or doubting his fit for the job, they may at least be concerned that he is not happy, that something is awry. In any case, there are few winners at a moment like this.

Jack's family and trailing spouse have put a lot at stake: bereft of old friends and family, they are facing adjustments to new schools and perhaps an unanticipated job search for Jack's wife. Then there is Jack's new management. They have put their credibility on the line with the Board and with those key stakeholders who are counting on Jack to provide leadership on mission-critical business initiatives. And most of all, Jack suffers. For when these feelings linger and take root they undermine his effectiveness, often becoming the first moments of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I wish I could say this is a rare phenomenon, but those of us familiar with the facts realize that as many as 40% of new hires like Jack fail within the first 18 months. Often, it does not take 18 months for the first signs of faltering toward failure to manifest. As we see in the vignette above, it may first arise in unexpressed anxieties, which when neglected only serve to foster self-doubt, hesitation, and a selective emphasis of the negative. These feelings of insecurity are the natural enemy of adaptive development.

It Doesn't Need to Be This Way

Elsewhere I have spoken and written about ways to intervene with the so-called faltering executive, but here I only wish to indicate how this kind of business failure exemplifies a very fundamental dynamic in performance, something I describe in the Challenge-Development Curve. This curve addresses the interaction between two forces that are always at work in business: 1) new and often daunting challenges, and 2) the demand driven responses, adaptive or maladaptive, they elicit.

You will note that increasing levels of challenge like those which our new-hire, Jack, is facing (i.e., novelty, complexity, unfamiliar relationships, felt urgency to prove oneself, and time pressures) will actually stimulate effort, focus attention, and accelerate learning and adaptive development up to a point (b). Beyond that point, however, further increases in challenge only serve to overwhelm us, constrain our adaptive capacities, and cause a negative turn and downward trajectory (b-c).

The curvilinear relationship between level of challenge and gains in adaptive development (a-b-c) can be moderated by access to resources such as expert advice, stakeholder feedback, group problem solving, and mentoring. In Jack's case, a well designed, assessment-based integration plan might incorporate some of these elements. The effects of these moderating variables are represented in the green line (b-d).

The effect of moderating factors is not a given, however. Their effect is mediated by other, person-based factors, such as one's level of self-awareness, openness to self-examination and personal change, a practiced capacity for reflection, and an ability to communicate openly with others and repair ruptures in relationships. Notice that these mediating variables imply affective competence, abilities to notice, self-manage, and communicate emotions, and to do so in the context of relationships.

The Corollary

The truth is that whether we are talking about failures in hiring (up to 40%), failures in merger integration (up to 50%), or failures in process improvement (up to 60%), the action of these mediating variables is often what explains the difference between success and disappointment. As Aristotle observed over 2000 years ago, we are social animals. It is the relational competencies that help us find our way, cope with challenge, and prevail.

Therefore, in any enterprise, for-profit or not-for-profit, we must find and cultivate a genuine basis and common cause for working together, one that is sustainable through good times and bad. We must find ways to connect with one another, form bonds of trust, and develop the skills to resolve the inevitable strains and difficulties that will arise in a world in which even the most talented among us are continually facing rising levels of challenge.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA
Consulting Psychologist
Generativity LLC

helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

Physician Leadership: In Honor of Don Berwick

2011-12-15T08:54:00.000-05:00

The recent departure of Dr. Don Berwick from CMS prompts reflection on the importance of physician leadership in today's environment of health care reform. This article appreciatively observes how Don's example embodies much of the emerging wisdom on what we need from next-generation physician leaders.

Recently a living legend of health care improvement and reform, Don Berwick, was lost to the public sector, a casualty of petty political bickering.  Upon reflection, perhaps this loss is bittersweet.  On the one hand, we certainly need someone like him in Washington to maximize the positive influence that CMS can have in driving reform.  On the other hand, Berwick's personal courage and sacrifice in undertaking what he surely knew would be a brief and difficult tenure at CMS reawakens us to the truth that leadership starts from within.

As Administrator of CMS, Dr. Berwick projected the even-keeled temperament, fair-mindedness, and objectivity that advocates of progressive physician leadership profess.  See for example Howard Beckman's "Lost in Translation: Physicians' Struggle with Cost-Reduction Programs" (2011), Joseph Bujak's "Creating a 'We' Culture" (2011), and James Stoller's "Developing Physician-Leaders: A Call to Action" (2009). All are physicians and all have advocated what Berwick has lived.

As Berwick and these authors know, physician leadership is essential if our currently fragmented constellation of stakeholders in health care are to begin converging in their vision, values, and actions on behalf of the common good.  Such change is never easy and it will not, in my opinion, be realized absent non-economic motives, sustained commitment, and transformational leadership. With that in mind, let's briefly consider what progressive physician leaders are telling us about what is needed in next-generation physician leadership.

In two vignettes, Beckman contrasts alternative ways of conceptualizing and communicating the imperatives to control or reduce costs, the primary preoccupation of health plans and employers, and to improve quality and safety, the primary preoccupation of physicians, hospitals, and patients. As with any drama, the first vignette builds tension by characterizing opposing camps acting from the grip of aggressive-defensive emotions. Then, in the second vignette he suggests the basis for an overlapping consensus, common ground that addresses both matters: the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) definition of quality as reducing overuse, misuse, and underuse, which clearly impacts both imperatives. This we might agree is an act of reflective and responsible leadership.

Joseph Bujak addresses a central theme in health care reform: the transition from "...payment for volume to payment for value with an emphasis on accountability for patient care outcomes." He asks, "...can or will physicians adapt to this transition?" He, like others, identifies autonomy as a core value for physicians and argues that this value can work against the kind of teamwork needed to thrive in the new world of bundled payment, accountable care organizations (ACOs), and the medical home concept. The future state will impact incomes, it will require greater interdependency (We) and systems thinking, and it will imply change in the physician's professional identity. Physician leadership of external change requires internal, intrapersonal transformation.

In Stoller's article, he highlights the conditions that call for great physician leadership today: 1) the complexity and tension from the external environment (insurance, reimbursement, regulation); 2) the steady stream of expensive technologies whose effectiveness must be established; 3) the professional workforce, which is so difficult to manage; and 4) the conflicting imperatives of expense control, quality, and safety. Like Bujak, he argues that physicians are not taught to collaborate in their training or to yield to interdependencies outside of time-limited actions in the ER or OR. He argues for physician-leader development programs and endorses four basic competencies: 1) knowledge; 2) emotional intelligence (EQ); 3) vision; and 4) organizational altruism. Leadership must be knowledge-based, relationally attuned to the human organization, bold in its strivings, and must serve the public good.

Any who have followed Don Berwick's career will recognize him as an exemplar of the kind of leadership called for by Stoller and others. He not only endorses but helped author the IOM's thoughtful and integrated view of cost and quality as reducing overuse, misuse, and underuse. Berwick was among the first to embrace and advocate the physician-leader's role in encouraging interdependency and a culture of We through his work at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. And few have argued more strongly for the normative leadership competencies of basing decisions on knowledge, doing the right thing for the system as whole, treating all stakeholders with respect, and asserting a bold vision of what might be when we all strive for excellence in health care.

Perhaps his return to the "real world" will enable Don Berwick to do what he does so well, to inspire leadership from within, from within the person of the physician and health care executive, and from within the health system. That is where responsible leadership begins, and that is what will make "accountable care" a realistic possibility.

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA
Consulting Psychologist
Generativity LLC

helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference

When Face Validity Deceives

2011-12-13T11:26:00.000-05:00

Face validity truly is in the eye of the beholder. That is, it is affected by the selective perceptions and biases that shape our evaluative judgment of what works and what seems less robust or reliable. This article addresses problematic consequences of a systematic bias for the so-called "hard" factors of performance.

It will hardly surprise you when I observe that most business leaders have a bias for the so-called "hard" variables of performance, the practical-instrumental know-how that is so amenable to rational control when formulating strategy or solving a problem. As the thinking goes, knowledge is power, and the more rational and logical the knowledge, the more powerful it is. But then why is it that a very popular body of such knowledge, Six Sigma, has been shown to fail 60% of the time.

Face validity in this case is represented by the immediate impressions of power one attributes to Six Sigma based on a rational appraisal of its logic and methodology, perhaps bolstered by reports of its success elsewhere, i.e., early on GE was a strong proponent. On its face, it aligns with our biases about the kinds of thinking and action that work best. There is the appearance of precision and rigor, observable and quantifiable measures, and systematic (almost machine-like) discipline.

Hard knowledge and skills mostly concern the external thing world of objects and process steps. In principle, they can be organized and manipulated with consistency to reduce the variability of output to near-zero levels. But, once again, let's recall that 60% of the time, after blackbelts and greenbelts have gone on to conquer their next challenge, performance returns to its original levels. If we assume that Six Sigma can be effective, we are still left to wonder what transforms can-be (potential) to is (actuality).

A couple of recent replies to this question are offered by Del Angel & Froelich (Six Sigma: What Went Wrong, 2008) and Chakravorty (Six Sigma Failures: An Escalation Model, 2009). Both in their own ways, anecdotally and empirically respectively, suggest that human behavior, the so-called "soft" variables of performance play a role.

Of course, since people are infinitely more variable in virtue of their personalities, idiosyncratic response tendencies, moods, and mental states, soft or psycho-social variables are less amenable to machine-like control. Thus, they may lack face validity for those with a hard-factor bias.

But, here's a rather interesting observation: While Six Sigma projects succeed 40% of the time, psychotherapy has been proven to be effective 70% of the time. Hmm, perhaps the soft stuff is more powerful than some realize. Even more interesting, perhaps the softer variables of performance, if given proper attention, can actually catalyze the effect of the hard factors. Aren't we really talking about the relationship between management discipline (hard) and people leadership (hard & soft)?

Bill Macaux, Ph.D. MBA
Consulting Psychologist
Generativity LLC

helping executives unleash their potential to lead and make a difference