Both of my kids are really into the stretchy bracelet craze. On the way to the grocery store today, my nine year old son remarked that one of his bracelets looked liked Medusa.  Feigning ignorance, I said, “Medusa? Who’s that?”  He replied, “You know, Mom, the mythological character who had snakes on top of her head.”

Of course, I know who Medusa is, but I wanted to know if my kid knew. Later, I realized that this conversation represented a technique honed during my years as a corporate trainer. I think of it as the “low-key testing for understanding.”  This method isn’t a new concept, of course. Greek philosopher Socrates is credited with creating a method to help people form their own conclusions by asking questions.  As a more contemporary example, Dave Meier, founder of The Center for Accelerated Learning, says “never do for the learners what they can do for themselves”. His point is that people know a lot more than we give them credit for.  Given the right tools and encouragement, people can usually figure things out for themselves.

Leaders can use this approach too. The primary objective of leadership is to bring out the best in one’s contributors. When a contributor has a procedural question or is facing a dilemma the “test for knowledge” technique is an excellent way to demonstrate a collaborative leadership approach. Leaders don’t develop others by being the “sage on the stage”; they help their contributors figure it out for themselves.

Back in my supervisory days, whenever my direct reports had a question about how to do something, I’d draw on this “test for knowledge” approach.  Instead of immediately launching into an explanation, I’d start by “testing” for what they already know with a question like, “What have you already tried to solve this problem?” or “Tell me which parts you’re clear about and which parts need clarification.” Doing this accomplishes two things. It: a) Saves time by avoiding a rehash of something the contributor already knows and b) Models open-ended questioning, which the contributor can in turn use with their colleagues.

After discussing the answers to the low-key understanding test, I would then follow up to help the contributor think through their options and uncover answers.  Some of my favorites inquiries:

• Do you know where to find the answer on the company intranet? Let’s go take a look and find it together.
• What part of the process is unclear to you?
• What are the pros and cons of this situation?
• If you decide on taking this action, what’s the worst thing that can happen?
• What’s your gut telling you?
• How can I support you in this decision?

Some say a leader’s job is to remove the barriers to their contributors’ performance. While this is true, a leader must resist the temptation to jump in to “fix” problem so that people can quickly move on with their day. By taking a few extra minutes to fully explore a contributor’s knowledge base, a leader will actually save time in the long run.  Beyond time-saving benefits, employee engagement will get a boost too. Contributors who are involved in solving their own problems gain confidence, which leads to future positive contribution.

Whenever you’re tempted to take the short cut, remember this: it’s not what you know, it’s what they learn. Do Socrates proud and use the low-key test for understanding.

Photo credit: istockphoto.com © Hans Laubel

This morning, while preparing for the work day, I had a random thought and quickly posted it to Twitter:

Props to Joan Koerber-Walker for starting the #BeOriginal hashtag on Twitter.

Judging by the number of retweets, I’d say this tweet had legs!  Or should I say “wings?”  To go beyond the 140 characters with that quote, here are the thoughts that led to that particular tweet:

1. If there’s no resistance, it doesn’t mean the proposed change is a bad idea.  Maybe what you propose is something employees have been secretly waiting for. (Thank goodness, the company is finally making that change!) Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’ve upped the bar all that much further.  You haven’t.
2. You need to expect a certain amount of push-back.  It’s a normal part of the change cycle. However, if the resistance is swift, powerful and nearly universal, it’s time to re-think the change you’re proposing.  It’s either off-target or too severe for what the organizational system (be it human or process) can handle at this time.
3. Wild ideas just to “get the juices flowing” aren’t always a great use of time. In the book Linchpin, Seth Godin talks about how “artists” (people highly skilled at what they do) “don’t think outside the box, because outside the box there’s a vacuum.”  He says that in order to “ship” (get the work out the door) “artists think along the edge of the box, because that’s where the work gets done.”( p.102.) I agree. The most effective leaders are those that stretch people’s boundaries, not snap them clear in half, like a severed rubber band.

So, that’s what was on my mind when I posted the game-changer tweet.  What do you take away from that quote?

Leaders, when’s the last time you saw your employees go the extra mile? 

Today? Last week?  Last month?

The photo at right was taken by Terry P., the Library Media Supervisor at my kids’ elementary school. (Back in the day, we called them “librarians”.) Shortly before this picture was taken, Terry had been doing an activity with the kids using pennies and reference hand outs.  At the end of the activity she instructed the kids to “stack everything on the tables before you leave”.

It would appear that an enterprising student took Mrs. P.  at her word.

Imagine the patience and precision required to stack all of those pennies.  Was it worth the trouble?  Was it even necessary?

Seems to me that your employees might be wondering that very thing— is what I’m doing even worth the trouble?  Does anybody even notice?

Leaders, stop for a moment and think of your team members.  What are they doing that would be noteworthy enough to document with a photograph?

Drawing a blank?  Then it’s to time start paying closer attention. Maybe they are going the extra mile, but you’ve somehow missed it. Your people are doing good work*.  Chances are you’ve just been too busy to see it. So go out and start finding the stacked pennies. Oh, and if you do find a noteworthy achievement— would you do me a favor and thank them for it?  Remember, it took a lot to get those pennies to stand up in that stack. If they don’t get any feedback, they might be tempted next time to let them sit in a big, messy pile.

*OK, so maybe some of them aren’t doing such great work.  That’s an entirely different blog post.

Photo credit: ©Terry P.

I’ve been watching reruns of the Ken Burns series The National Parks  on PBS. It’s an in-depth look at the birth and evolution of our country’s national park system.  Called “America’s best idea” by writer and historian Wallace Stegner,  men both famous ( Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir )and lesser-known (Stephen Mather , Charles Young) were called upon to leverage their leadership skills to help preserve our nation’s rich landscape.

The other night, I watched Episode 3 which chronicles the years 1915 – 1919. As I watched, I was struck by the difficulty of the decisions National Parks advocates faced. For example, Stephen Mather, the National Parks Service first director, faced stiff opposition to the idea of naming the Grand Canyon as a National Park.  As an observer 90 years removed from the situation, it seems clear: of course, we should save The Grand Canyon for future generations.  But for those leaders who were tasked with setting aside land for conservation, the decision was anything but easy at the time.

The passage of many years certainly gives the gift of perspective. I’m reminded of my friend Pete’s dad, Wally Smith (not their real names). Mr. Smith was famous amongst his family members for an assortment of witticisms, which over time became known as “Wallyisms”. One of Pete’s favorite Wallyisms related to decision-making. Evidently, when Pete was young and grappling with a difficult decision, he would seek out his father for sage advice.  Pete would present his dilemma to his father, asking, “Do you think it’s the right decision?”  Pete’s father would gravely respond:

“Well, you’ll know in a 100 years.”

Gee, thanks, Dad.

But you know what? Wally was on to something.

Those tough decisions, the ones that keep us up at night— eventually we (or our successors) will  have the benefit of history to help judge whether or not we made the right choice.  But for now, in this moment, we need to decide. Or, perhaps, make a choice not to decide, at least for the time being.  In either case, we must have faith that we know right from wrong, good choices from bad.  We must have the character to stand up for inequities, and to put the greater good before our immediate self interests. This is especially true if we are in positions of leadership that require the stewardship of precious resources.

Which brings me back to the leaders featured in The National Parks series.  The passage of 100 years hasn’t changed the core of what it means to be a leader. Leaders back then grappled with the implications of big decisions, just as they do today.  Sure, there are differences (telegraph vs. smart phones) but the human factors that drive the decision remain largely unchanged. A person with character is a person with character, whether he or she lives today or lived a century ago.

Leaders—are you currently faced with a tough dilemma? Ask yourself: what will my decision mean 100 years from now? Who knows, maybe a Wallyism from the late 20th century will help you set the stage the 21^st century.

Incidentally, I thought this topic would be a fitting one, given that this is The People Equation’s 100^th blog post. Do you have a mentor or family member who’s famous for his or her sage advice?  Care to share?  We’d love to hear it.

Photo credit: istockphoto © DSGpro

Sometimes a tweet just sums it up perfectly.  Ben Eubanks tweeted:

“Verbal Spam”.  Creates quite the mental picture, doesn’t it?

How often are you subjected to verbal “spam” in the workplace?  Probably more often than you’d like.  My first reaction to Ben’s tweet was to imagine people who blather on, saying nothing of value.  But then, I had a thought of how maybe there is some measure of value to some people’s “spam”.  Ever heard the saying “one person’s trash is another person’s treasure?”  I think this saying could apply to the communication process as well. Maybe some people are just droning on and on, but what if they are simply at cross-purposes with their listener? What equates to trashy spam for you as the listener may indeed be another person’s golden treasure.

Here’s an example.  When I conduct my Listening Skills for Leaders webinar, we discuss the following graphic:

Let’s say the woman on the left is a supervisor who is explaining a new company policy to the person on the right who is an employee.  The supervisor is very carefully explaining the details of the new policy—when the change will go into effect, the specifics of the change and what the employee needs to do to adhere to the policy.  It’s her job as a supervisor to communicate these details; therefore she believes she’s delivering a treasure-trove of information.

Now let’s look at it from the employee’s viewpoint. Perhaps this policy change will require some type of change in the way the employee handles his day-to-day work.  Maybe the change is extensive enough that he may have to learn something new, or re-think how he handles other related company policies. Maybe those changes are daunting in some way.  In the graphic above, the employee is listening for the emotional content of the supervisor’s message—and isn’t hearing it.  He’s only hearing the logistical details, which he may translate as “unhelpful” or even “spam”.

So, what’s a supervisor to do?  Supervisors are constantly communicating—everything from the  mundane (“cookies in the break room, eat up!”) to the life-changing (“We are going to have do lay-offs for fourth quarter”). The key is to think about the expectations of the listeners.  Supervisors skilled in verbal communication will think about the following before they communicate their message:

1. What’s my intent in sending this message?
2. What does my listener expect from this communication?
3. How will I check for understanding?

Answering these three simple questions will help supervisors stay focused in their communication, thereby reducing the chance that their employees will run their communications through the mental spam filter.

Have you ever led a high-visibility project that has crashed and burned? I have and it taught me a powerful leadership lesson. Read on . . .

The Back Story

Many years ago, shortly after I joined a Fortune 500 company, I was assigned to manage a project called the “Institute”. The Institute was an annual, week-long conference that the company offered to the sales force of its distribution channel. Planning the Institute was an intensive, 10-month project. In addition to coordinating the week’s curriculum with 7 product managers, the project also required full conference logistics planning (meals, facility tours, lodging, etc.) on the part of the Project Manager. It was a huge undertaking.

Lessons Learned— the Hard Way

So, why did the project go so badly? In a word: expectations. I didn’t fully understand the expectations of my customers (the conference participants), and as a result, there were some very angry, disappointed (and vocal!) people in attendance. It was a nightmarish week as I struggled mightily to appease demanding customers and keep the conference logistics on track.  Not everything was a train wreck, but the aspects deemed “unacceptable” by many of the group were enough to cast a negative vibe on the entire conference. At the end of working an 80-hour week, I drove home, exhausted and demoralized. I wondered what the following Monday would bring . . . reprimands from my boss? A demotion?

Astonishingly, my boss did not reprimand me.  She had managed a few Institutes herself and was therefore able to take the incident in stride. So, I took inventory of the very difficult lessons learned and then did my best to put the assignment in the past.  I also breathed a sigh of relief—the Institute project was a grueling assignment, and therefore it was rotated amongst the four Project Managers on my team. It would be someone else’s problem next time around.

A Second Chance

Fast forward two months. . .  

It’s time to start planning for the next Institute and the team is discussing who will be the project lead.  My boss Mary tells me I will be the project lead for the next Institute. Wait— no! That’s not how it’s supposed to work. I’m panicked.

In private, I pleaded with Mary to assign someone else to the project. I told her I didn’t have it in me to endure the intensity of that project for a second time in a row. Mary looked me straight in the eye and said, “Jennifer, you need to manage this project again, because you need to prove to yourself that you can do it—and do it amazingly well. I know that the next Institute that you manage is going to be a success.”

At the time, being told I had to manage the Institute for a second time in a row seemed like a huge punishment. In retrospect, I now see if for what it truly was: a gift. It was a chance to redeem myself. Mary gave me the opportunity to prove to myself that I had what it took to manage a complex, demanding project. And, I’m proud to say that seven months later, I hosted a highly successful, well-attended Institute. It wasn’t easy getting to that point, but without Mary’s decisive leadership action, I wouldn’t even have had the chance to do so.

A Leader’s Choice

When projects go awry on a team, a leader has several choices: coach, reprimand, or remove. In my case, it would have been easy for Mary to “remove” me by assigning the Institute project to someone else. After all, that was the standard procedure and I was clearly not interested in jumping in again. However, Mary knew that if I didn’t get “back on that horse” immediately, I would forever doubt my ability to handle such a large scale project.

How leaders respond to mistakes or failures on their team shapes the way team members will respond to challenges. Team members who know that there will be “hell to pay” if something goes wrong will play it safe. I was trying to “play it safe” by not managing the Institute again. Luckily for me, Mary didn’t buy into that mindset. Mistakes happen and savvy leaders know that in order to get the best out of their people they need to create a culture that allows a bit of room for the occasional slip-up.

A little bit of redemption goes a long way.

Crickets at your team meetings?

So I’m sitting at a large round table, talking with a team of eight senior-level leaders who work for a large corporation.  These are smart, sophisticated people, who have both street cred as field operatives and many years’ experience leading various types and sizes of work groups.  We’re discussing how to ensure that our communications are less command-and-control.  Comments start to flow:

• “We need to be more open-minded”
• “Our younger workforce expects to be part of the conversation”
• “How do we invite more participation?”
• “It’s a more informal process these days….”

Heads are nodding in agreement.  The group is engaged, building on each other’s responses.  Then, one person is brave enough to be the Devil’s Advocate:

“OK, so let’s say that I do all of these things.  I’m asking for input, I’m trying to get them involved. Which, by the way, I think I’m pretty good at.  So I ask for feedback and all I get is, you know, The Crickets.”

To which I inquire— Crickets?

“Yeah,” he says.  “You know—so quiet you could hear the crickets chirp?”

Ah, yes, I do know.  And the other leaders around the table chuckle and nod their heads in understanding.  What leader hasn’t tried to draw out his or her team, only to be met with silence or perfunctory “Nope, we’re all good. Nothing to say.”  While there’s no “truth serum” to get people talking, there are some ways to ensure that your team members will participate when asked.

Think about how you ask the question. Are your questions truly open-ended, or are they statements disguised as a question?  Phrases like, “What’s your reaction to the idea on the table?” and “Who has an alternative idea to offer?” are neutral and invite discussion. If you say something like, “Can we all agree that we need to do XYZ?” or “That’s a great idea, don’t you think?” tend to put the emphasis on your opinions and agenda.  These statements are good for bringing a dialog to a close, but not for creating discussion.

Inspect your consistency. Do you consistently ask for input?  Or, do you only ask on the “easy” stuff—things that don’t take a lot of time to work through?  Leaders who establish a track record of inviting diverse opinions are those who will, over time, get valuable input from their teams. Many leaders say to me, “I’d love to ask for input, but it takes too much time!” This is true; there’s an upfront investment.  Ask yourself, “Will the investment of time upfront pay off in the long run?”  If there is a true urgency and no time for extended discussion, you can still ask for input, but set a clear parameter: “Team, we’ve got a time crunch for this—we can only do a quick 15 minute huddle—what can you give me quickly to be sure we still make a good decision?”

Review your track record of taking action. The biggest mistake that I see from leaders is that they ask for input, (“because that’s our culture—we need to be team-based”) but don’t intend to do anything with it.  If you know you won’t (or can’t) take any action on the team’s suggestions, don’t bother asking.  Of course, you won’t be able to implement all suggestions, so again, set the framework: “I’m looking for 10 – 15 ideas.  After that, we’ll whittle the ideas down to the ones that make the most sense, given our time and budget constraints.”

Do you close the loop? Which of their ideas did you use? Be sure to let them know. Moreover, be sure to let me know if you didn’t use the suggestions—and why.  Be as specific as possible about why the suggestion couldn’t be implemented.  By giving specific feedback now, you can inform the team’s thought process for later, helping them understand the bigger picture issues of budget, strategy, resources, and yes, even organizational politics. This will pay dividends for future “I’d like your input” discussions.

Enjoying the serenade of cricket night-song at home on a balmy evening is a delight.  “Crickets” at your team meetings—not so much. Follow these four simple tips and you’ll reduce the silence at your team meetings.

What’s your favorite dialog-starter?  How do you invite discussion that’s productive and open?

Photo credit: istockphoto.com © Tatiana Popova

John Spence, author of Awesomely Simple

Earlier this year, I discovered the book Awesomely Simple and wrote a book review on it for this blog. I admired the book’s down-to-earth approach and wanted to learn more, so I reached out to its author, John Spence. John agreed to sit down with me last month for an interview.

Jennifer: Thank you so much for your time, John.  Let’s start from the broad perspective. What’s has the reaction Awesomely Simple been?

John:

As I talk with people about the book, here’s what I’m finding: business owners are hungry for any idea that will help them improve their business. They are running so fast and lean that they don’t have a lot of time to work ON their business. They are able to get solid ideas [from the book] that they can implement immediately. I tried to write the book in as simple a manner as possible to help them out.

Jennifer: That leads to my next question. You say that the premise of your book is complexity versus simplicity and running an effective business is simple, but not easy. Why do you think sometimes the business books make it so complex?

John: Many business books today are written by academicians or people who are big serious thinkers and are seriously into research. These people get paid for being brilliant and making things complex so you have to hire them to explain it.  That is part of their job. I just wanted my book to be simple and clear to understand. Here is the important part:  if it is easy to understand, then it is easier to apply.  

During my presentations to leaders, I often ask: “How many have read “Good to Great?” Just recently, during a lecture I gave at Wharton, many raised hands. Then I asked, “How many used it?” Not so many hands raised.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Jim Collins.  I always think this is an interesting dichotomy; there is a big difference between reading a book, understanding a book and then applying the ideas in the book. To me a book is useless if you can’t get to the third stage of applying the ideas. I wanted [people to take] ideas to action in my book.

Jennifer: Is it that the ideas in some books are too esoteric?

John: It might be that they are a little too challenging to grasp. Too esoteric.  It’s that old “Knowing/Doing Gap;” a lot of people know what they have to do but making that gap as narrow as possible is extremely difficult to do.

Jennifer: So we are talking about how your book is different. It swings the pendulum in a completely different direction—back to simplicity. The book outlines six principles of business success. Have any of the six been resonating more strongly than others when you talk with folks?

John: “Best People” has definitely resonated. I am starting to hear something that businesses are concerned that when the economy turns around their employees will bail as they have been worked so hard, maybe with less pay.  This is a bad thing to hear a business owner say especially if they know they have some great quality personnel.

Another one that has resonated with many people is “Disciplined Execution”. Leaders are saying “I know these things, but I’m not doing them consistently. It’s isn’t about learning a whole new model, it’s being more consistent about doing the basics. I can’t believe we don’t nail the fundamentals.”

Here is a classic example. Everyone knows how difficult it is to lose weight and what has to be done: reduce your calories and increase your exercise. So simple, yet not many of us do it really well. You need courage, discipline and determination to do these things really well. In my book there are just six thing to focus on. Just do the fundamentals really really well and you’ll devastate the marketplace.

Jennifer: So what is getting in the way?

John: Tolerating mediocrity, being so busy trying to put out fires that they don’t take time to build a fire station, getting caught in the daily busy-ness.  People are so busy working in their business that they don’t have time to work on their business. They are always hoping for a magic bullet. The six [principles] I have listed are the most critical.

Jennifer: You mentioned tolerating mediocrity. I noticed this is a strong theme throughout your book. In your experience of working with a broad section of leadership, why is this going on?

John: There are a several sides to this issue. First of all it is impossible to create a culture of excellence unless there are clear standards of excellence. I think companies may tolerate mediocrity because they have not defined what superior performance looks like clearly enough.  You can’t hold someone accountable to a standard that is ambiguous. No one ever told them [employees] what good performance is and how it will be measured. You have to clearly outline the standard.

In my book I discuss:  Train/Transfer/Terminate.  I love the Jack Welsh quote: “I never fired anybody that was surprised.”  You need to tell the employee you have set clear standards. Leaders need to say “we know you are not meeting them, what can I do to help you?”

Tolerating mediocrity falls back on the leader to set standards, discussing those standards, holding people accountable for those standards, being honest, and having courageous communication around those standards and letting people know when their performance is subpar. 

Here’s another factor: consider the middle or senior manager who may not be performing that well either. They don’t want to shine a light of accountability on someone else because they know that light will be reflected back on them.

In “Five Dysfunctions of a Team” by Patrick Lencioni talks about this really well when he talks about vulnerability.  It is about people thinking: I am afraid to say “I don’t know” or to say “I made a mistake”. Then the thinking evolves to “I don’t want to hold anyone else accountable because I don’t want anyone to hold me accountable”. I think a lot of times a mediocre leader lets mediocrity go because they don’t want to be held to a higher standard either.

Lastly, I think it is very challenging for people to have the conversation around “your performance is not to standard.” Many leaders are reluctant to have this conversation because they are just afraid to confront it. They just hope the situation fixes itself. One of my favorite phrases is: hope is not a strategy.  Leaders need to get better at those courageous conversations. Allowing someone to perform poorly when it eventually puts their job in jeopardy without talking to them is really mean. It’s not fair to the person, or the company. So, the earlier you have those conversations, the better because there’s still a chance you as a leader can fix it. But leaders need to have those courageous communications so that they aren’t tolerating mediocrity.

Jennifer: Speaking of conversations, I think your book really outlined some helpful specific dialog and practical tools to use.

John: Yes, there are several tools I have put in the book to help leaders. They’re sort of common sense and yet have been huge hits. For example, there is the “four pieces of paper” to help with managerial the four levels of decision-making.  I just met with a board of director and taught him the four level decision-making process. He thought it was so fantastic and would be able to apply it immediately.

Jennifer: In the chapter outlining the “Best People” principle, you tell a story from your personal consulting experience in which you stood in front of a client’s entire workforce and told the truth, which in turn got you fired from the project by the company’s leadership. It was a great example of “telling the truth to power”.  Readers from my blog are external leadership consultants and internal leaders.  Please give them some advice on how to speak “truth to power.”

John:  First of all, if you are a consultant: As a trusted advisor, you have an absolute responsibility to tell the truth all of the time— as you see it. Even if that costs you your job.  [As a consultant] I have been terminated for saying things that were uncomfortable or saying things that no one else would say.

The things I share [with clients] are not based upon my opinion or my thoughts and feelings. I collect information from hundreds or thousands of employees. I deliver the message from the employees. Most of my stuff is based on interviews, confidential surveys, and gathering data, with just a little bit of my opinion added in.

Now, if you’re a leader receiving unflattering information: I believe that when someone delivers that kind of information to you [as the leader] that the good lead r (metaphorically speaking) hugs that messenger. The leader’s message should be, “I hate to hear that, I love that you told me.” It may be painful to hear but it is important to listen and be thankful.

Jennifer: John, this has been an extremely interesting conversation. Readers of The People Equation will benefit tremendously. Thank you so much for your time.

John: My pleasure.

NOTE FROM JENNIFER:

John has generously offered to give me three signed copies of his book Awesomely Simple to share with my readers.  Want a copy?  Write a comment here or at the SkillSource Facebook fan page to the following question:

“What’s the most simple, yet awesome advice you ever received from a leader?” 

I will take all comments, put them in a hat and draw out three winners.  Enter your comment by 5:00 PM (EDT) Friday April 23, 2010. I’ll contact you via email if your name is drawn.

One of the best things about the blog carnival format is seeing how bloggers employ creativity when summarizing the blog posts.  Each month, I delight in seeing the host’s unique angle. One blogger who always has a unique take is Sharlyn Lauby at The HR Bartender. Sharlyn’s observations about HR, Training and Leadership are always offered up with a little “something extra” that makes a stop at her blog a must. For this month’s Leadership Carnival, Sharlyn offers up a clever “anniversary” theme. It’s a great round-up of leadership posts, so be sure to stop by and see the full list here.

Leaders: Fearless or Reckless?

In his book Linchpin Seth Godin draws a distinction between the words fearless and reckless. Fearless people, he says, are “unafraid of things one shouldn’t be afraid of.” They push through any imagined “threat” to make a presentation to a difficult customer or conduct a challenging conversation with an underperforming employee. On the other hand, reckless people “rush into places where only a fool would go. Reckless leads to huge problems, usually on the boss’s dime. Reckless is what led us to the mortgage and liquidity crisis.” [p. 64, Linchpin, 2010]

When it comes to leadership, it’s easy to look at these two words and think, “well, of course reckless leaders are a liability in our workplaces/schools/government. Why even bother with the distinction?” Reckless behaviors lead to bad organizational and financial outcomes. Clearly, it’s not a desirable leadership trait.  I wonder: have some leaders gotten the two words mixed up? Many leaders may strive for “fearlessness” (as defined by Godin) but in the process, have they crossed over to the “dark side” and into recklessness?

Let’s take corporate America, for example. In the workplace, some like their leaders much the same way they enjoy Starbuck’s Italian Roast blend: strong and bold. It’s the archetype of the hero-leader: a man on a horse, leading the charge. And, if you’re to believe Jason Seiden, he has a good head of hair too. (Listen to the HR Happy Hour’s Leadership Show for more on that interesting sidebar.)

For the moment, let’s set aside the debate on whether hero-leadership is what companies need. That’s an entirely different discussion. What if you work in a company where the culture values boldness, drive and charisma as desirable leadership traits? If you are in this situation, then Godin’s distinction becomes useful.  There’s a very thin line between fearless and reckless.  With today’s relentless pace and constant pressures, crossing that line becomes tempting.  Company cultures that promote leadership risk-taking without the counterbalancing forces of good judgment potentially set up the ultimate drawback: in the quest to doing something ground-breaking, leaders will take risks that are long on bravado and short on good sense.

So, how can a leader push those boundaries without being pulled into recklessness? It comes down to exercising sound judgment that’s aligned with one’s values.

 Faced with a decision that tempts recklessness? Ask yourself:

• Will my actions stand the light of day— would I be proud to have them reported in the Wall Street Journal?
• Who will be harmed by this action— physically, financially or emotionally?
• Who else besides me benefits from this?
• What part of this am I doing for the accolades. . .  or the adrenalin rush?
• Am I willing to stand up in front of an audience (employees, shareholders, Congress) and take the hit for any consequences that may arise from my actions?
• Does this action line up with the company values? Does it line up with my personal values?
• Do I have the courage to speak up with there isn’t values alignment?

“Pushing boundaries” certainly fosters growth and innovation— up to a point. Smart leaders realize when they are approaching the out edge of positive ROI and courageously resist going beyond it.  This “push back” against unwise choices, driven by pressures of the day, is fearless in and of itself.

Are you fearless?

Photo credit: istock.com © Joggie Botma