Chapter XI: Capapility Is Not Automatic!
Leaders must have the mindset of cooperation, not competition.
Knowledge, or in this case knowledge of leadership is what we glean from our experience, melding it with our future adding in the rapid and constant change that surrounds us that creates the excitement and thirst for knowledge, regardless the source (Welch and Lyons, 2001). An education degree does not make capability automatic. It is my assertion there exist a tacit and well established truism in individual life as well as in organizations that mistakes are not the end of the world (generally), but serve as training modules for the future. Albeit the rearview mirror contains significant elements that develop our future; it does not remain a place to reside. Don’t dwell on those things that you did not do well, achieve greatness through a learning experience achieved. I further contend leaders must search alternative disciplines for comparisons of related social evaluation and examine these alternatives with excitement and enthusiasm. Simply put, compare yourself to what is provided herein and see if it fits and if it does, be my guess, use it, it belongs to you already and if you should feel this is merely another failed attempt at packaging a new Schick, well then I guess you already know what to do with it.
Knowledge is not everything, although essential to an organization. Leadership knowledge is an important ingredient to success of the group. Business and industry today understands from within the rank and file, and at management/leader levels that flaws exist. The angst with merely patching holes, putting out spot fires, and implementing improvements when time allows is that the innovation for fostering the company mission begins to demonstrate the same holes being ignored. When innovation is set to the side, those competitors with the gusto to go get it take over (Drucker, 2006). This is unacceptable for company or membership, it is the leader turning his back on what is important. The following link helps illustrate this point, https://hbr.org/2009/01/you-are-a-leader-really.html
The competitive edge alluded to in the sub-heading of this section does not refer to competitive corporations, but rather competition from within amongst the leadership teams. I speak to those that must be the fairest of them all, the one that must be in the lime-light, the finger pointer, the antitheses of all we have discussed thus far as the foundation of a leader. I speak of the person in the front office or near the front office that may be labeled a spin doctor of the latest canard or the provocateur. The one that has to deflect blame instead of taking responsibility. The one that constantly scapegoats others, who peddles fear and deception. The one that ignores truth, honesty, integrity for sake of filling his pockets. The one that is conspicuously absent when the fit hits the shan. The one that is continually looking over his shoulder rather than putting his arms around fellow members in cooperation. Yup, you know the guy I speak of, you recognize him, ever work for this guy before? Oh, did you think this was another Oval Office comparison, if the shoe fits..!
If someone attempts to sell you something that appears to be too good to be true, it probably is not true. In contemporary American society, snake oil salesman should be evident, but how or why do we still fall for the sales pitch. As an example, America should completely understand at this juncture that you cannot run government like a business. They are two different worlds. Business attempts to sell their widgets and government peddles hope. Government is in the business of caring for others; Business does not care for government. It is as simple as that folks. The attitudes are diametrically opposed. This is not to say that business and government cannot co-exist, and history will bear that out. All we have discussed thus far regarding leadership traits, styles, character, communications and capabilities is not restricted to either business or government, and actually has been experimented in the private sector more than in the government side of the ledger. So let us venture on to three main ingredients in a leader: attitude, approach, and ability.
Attitude: How well you perform your task.
I had not left one of my agencies very long when I received a telephone call from my successor. He relayed a story of something that had transpired involving an officer and a young woman that resisted arrest. Not an unusual event, but circumstances that surrounded this arrest caught the eye of major news coverage from nearby metropolitan areas. We chatted and I assured him that I would have handled the situation quite similarly. I ask, so “you’re having a bad day, Chief.” He relayed his discomfort, and I said “Well let me tell you about my day. I was called out about 3:00 in the morning due to a major brawl with approximately two hundred combatants, one of our officers in a new police car was just broadsided at an intersection, and I am on my way to the hospital. We had eight prisoners in the overflow section of our lockup that had not been arraigned in a timely fashion (Actually did not know they were there because we could not find the arrest records at the time.). The Coupe de Grace, one of our civilian community service officers, was just arrested in a neighboring community for a serious crime. So how bad is your day?” He said, “Talking to you always makes me feel better Chief.” I am here to serve; I do what I can. Should I have ignored my friend just because my day was difficult? I did not. I stopped what I was doing to help a friend, a colleague. I took a moment from my busy day because my attitude developed other parts of my leader capabilities. Being empathetic to the plight of another is one of those characteristics that has aided my career.
Attitude is a significant characteristic in leadership so pick a good one. Listening is the greatest compliment that you can pay anyone. Why not make someone else’s day a little better just because things are tough for you. Leaders lead, even when they don’t feel like it or want to. Attitude is the will to do something. Attitude is courage. Attitude is whether you will do what is right. Most significant to this discussion is that attitude is how well you do something.
It should be no surprise that each day we put our feet on the floor there has to be a burning issue in our gut that gets us moving. It is the purpose of being. At the same time when your feet hit the floor one must understand that each day he/she will face some form of adversity. How we deal with it may be determined by our attitude. Attitudes are developed, not predetermined. What are you doing about your attitude? Are you a finger pointer, proclaiming you were dealt this hand, and it really is not my fault. Those lacking capability usually require a scapegoat.
Attitudes are developed, and for leaders hopefully for the right reasons. A crisp attitude continually helps others grow in government and business.
Approach: Leaders develop leaders around them.
If attitude determines how well you perform your task, it is motivation that determines what you do. Motivation determines what you do. One of the most touted leadership themes over the past two decades is employee empowerment, the idea of giving power away. Yet, another tenet of leadership is that leaders must build their power to be effective. Which one is it?
Any leadership practice that increases another’s sense of self-determination, self-confidence, and personal effectiveness is practicing empowerment creating an atmosphere for success (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Leadership has always involved politics (Garner, 1990) and involves an ethical leader who possesses the philosophical and moral foundation for decision making (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010). It is critical to provide leaders choices; people cannot lead and cannot make a difference if they do not have choices (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Choices further build commitments, confidence and competence.
According to Kouzes & Posner (2007), enhancing self-determination means giving people control over their own lives. Therefore you, the leader, have to give them something of substance to control and for which they are accountable. Leaders actively coach, seeking ways to further develop greater decision making in their members. Effective leaders understand how the contextual factors of their jobs play out. In other words, do they perceive themselves as lacking control over their immediate situation or do they lack the capability and resources or latitude to accomplish the task?
You gain control by giving control. The more the member feels they are part of the decision making and in control of their own destiny, the harder they attempt to achieve organizational goals. Contemporary workforces are diverse and hungry for knowledge. Being the best that you can be was not a motto for U.S. Army recruiting that just dropped from the heavens. It was based on the fact that studies demonstrated that the new workforce wants a job that means something, they have some say in what they do, and that they can be the best they can be. The latter does not solely mean promotions. It means provide the member all the knowledge, skill, training, and education to perform their task. Then provide the needed resources and finally get out of the way.
Ability: The competency.
Ability is what you‘re capable of doing. Ability can be honed. If steel sharpens steel, then man can perfect man. However, not precipitously without careful consideration of multiple factors. First, hire right, second, train appropriately, third, coach consistently, and finally elevate fiduciary. Then, have the personal and moral courage to challenge members to achieve their most potential. I have used the standard that we begin at excellence and will move to perfection collectively. Leaders and managers require astute laser focus and attention of those that may wish to hide within the collective group. Included in this analysis is the leader him/herself.
The path-goal theory implies motivation is achieved through increased rewards for goal achievement, unlike situational theory proposes leaders must adapt to followers development level, and contingency theory, that is a mix between a leaders style and situational variables (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010).
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/lead_path_goal.html
In my policing career, this has not been out of my sphere of leadership especially when dealing with a more competent member or teams, specifically in undercover narcotics as compared to homicide investigators. The more competent the person, they generally have both the intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. This may be based solely on their perception that this stage of the game they deserve it. The argument may be some merit. The member or team wishes for participative style in that they know best in tactical situations and street survival, and should be rewarded for their expertise. Patrol officers have longevity pay for this notion and the more senior the officer the greater his/her reward.
It is critical to understand where your members are and where they need to go in order to achieve a transforming organization. It is not sufficient to attempt leadership without a firm understanding of the generational differences compounded by economics, current events, and where an organizational member has gained their life’s programming (Salahuddin, 2010). The transformational leader understands and models communications, coaching and team building, while coordinating organizational change through periods of miscues and impatience (Hagen, 2010).
Important to this section is that hiring right, training, experience etc. is not restricted to the entry level member. It also pertains to the leader as well. The lack of governance by the transformational leader, specifically within public safety agencies may be the lack of leadership courage to take the risks the role demands. Leaders need to use hiring standards that contain not only ethical standards but also leader quality standards, and provide training and education for the development of leaders within the organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
If leaders lead from what they know and have never been trained differently than most will find a comfort zone that they wish to exercise authority from rather than perform their function from the ethical center and do what is right for the organization and not self. The police leaders inability to bring about change and the dissatisfaction of the rank and file with stagnation has been the cause for rapid changeover at the top in the industry (Good leaders have been discounted as a result of the new Mayor’s deal with bargaining units to bring in new leadership as well.). However, when the lack of positive change is evidenced by community and external groups and the leader is without requisite skills as discussed then the final ax shall fall. [156]
Leaders that fail to create a vision, develop a leadership legacy, create a learning environment, and the atmosphere for change is failing to lead. This is specifically valid during periods of constant change viewed in political, economic, social, and work environments. It is critical to understand where your members are and where they need to go in order to achieve a transforming organization. It is not sufficient to attempt leadership without a firm understanding of the generational differences compounded by economics, current events, and where an organizational member has gained their life’s programming (Salahuddin, 2010).
The transformational leader understands and models communications, coaching and team building, while orchestrating the organizational transformation through periods of lapses of continuity or judgement and impulsiveness (Hagen, 2010). A leader has to take the time to recreate self, gain new perspectives, and explore new avenues for altering current path. Leaders need training to maintain a high degree of capability. Do not exhaust all training and education resources on members alone. The majority of resources will obviously go to this group due to sheer numbers, but critical to personal growth and health is expanding the leader self.
Having come to the end of this section take a moment to discuss effective and ineffective training experiences in which you have participated or which you have witnessed. What made them effective or ineffective? What were the long-term benefits?
Leaders develop leaders around them.
A Tyrannical power grab need not pay any attention to this section for obvious reasons. Some of which are they do not care what others have to say, communications is limited to what the tyrant has to say, nothing else matters, manipulation is for personal greed, authority is in disregard for the Rule of Law to name a few. Followers for this type of person is probably out of fear. The tyrant probably grabbed power during difficult times, leading from rejuvenated old social wounds, conducting inquisitions rather than having conversations relying on personal fear, acting on vulnerable emotions and raw nerves. These people (I’m attempting not to associate leader with the tyrant) think of themselves as the smartest person in the room. These people do not think of leadership legacy. They only think of themselves, they want to be showered with praise, pomp and circumstance, and maybe even throw in a military parade.
As part of the planning that we discussed in affiliation decision making, attitude, motivation and capability, I provide three phases to bring the preceding together. These are Dream what is possible, Think what is preferable, and Act on what is probable.
Dream what’s possible.
During any planning session, the head of the group should encourage dreaming in Technicolor. Dream broad, wide-ranging, without fear of cost or approval of others at this juncture. Do not restrict future possibilities at this stage. Those things that you did not think of get them from others involved in the process. Do not look for a complicated process, look for an information process. Dream without fear of offending others. If those involved are truly committed to the process they will not take this at the personal level but as an academic exercise of what or how things can and should be. Simple huh? Why then is it so difficult to move planning forward? Do you forgo your soul just to be in the in-group?
There comes a time in the life of a male that his prostate is much larger than is his ego. All else is really inconsequential. For the purpose of this discussion, we will assume that both genders may suffer from some physical affliction that sets their ego aside. At what point in your life has this occurred or has it not yet occurred? The point of this discussion is that “the greatest addiction in the world today is the human ego. Leaders who fall victim to this addiction want to be center stage. They often are threatened by the successes of others, so they fail to develop and use people’s talents or catch them doing something right. They want to be the best-“The fairest of them all.” (Blanchard, 2010, p. 61).
One cannot dream out of hopeless curiosity. Profound and acute dreaming must discount negative barriers and dream from a purpose toward reality. Dreams are a pathway to our future.
Think what’s preferable.
The next phase is to prioritize Technicolor into some objective reality. What is preferable? Why is it preferable over other ideas? Dreams are ideas with happy endings. Generally, because in our dreams right before the bad guy gets us, we find a defensive move to protect yourself. In reality, do we not have to do the same thing? Now we may not have a laser saber but what actually is our saber? Critical thinking has to be self-imposed to figure out your laser saber.
Reality provides a desirable environment for the preferable. How might one make an idea someone else’s choice, considering they have ruled from an authoritarian style? Reach back in your material and recall making changes requires demonstrating the-what’s in it for me and the greater the change, the greater the-what’s in it for me. Because it may be difficult to gain buy-in for the change does not eliminate it from the ethical, morale, and correct thing to do. The key here is to get buy-in during the original idea phase, not after a decision has been made.
Act on what’s probable.
That which is probable may not be an easy lift. Probable means what has been the track record, why is the need for the new concept, who is the best person to trek it out, what are the time frames for experiment? Just a few concerns for consideration be action takes place.
Before initiating the new, take a moment and think of why those that have said they would follow should trust you. Hopefully, at this stage you have demonstrated your authenticity, courage, strengths, and have communicated the effort proportionally, not too much over-kill and not just in passing present the material. Both can prove hazardous to the new venture.
As an example in policing, each day men and women of the force will go on duty, they will get in cars, go to designated zones, and they will have uniforms, equipment, and policy to guide them. The cars will have gas in them, the ancillary functions will be staffed, etc. All this in spite of you. What is essential is why they want to perform for you. Can followers rely on the agency head to take the fall if things do not work and not point fingers? When things go right, will the leader push those that made it work out in front of the camera’s to take a well- deserved bow? How predictable are you the leader in the chain of events leading up to and through the probable phase?
Second Chances
Previously, it was noted that second chances are a way of life. No one has ever achieved greatness or recognition on their own. Anyone that believes that they did it on their own is delusional, regardless if a father gave you a small million dollar loan to get started. Mistakes are part of the game and second chances are a derivative of a mistake. Mistakes are training ground for achieving excellence on your pathway to perfection. You can’t cry over spilt milk, just don’t [160]
spill a second time, that’s all a leader can ask. Second chances provide leeway for agency heads to be a risk taker and a follower to perfect the venture.
Commitment vs. Promises
A take away from this section should be: Do not make promises that you cannot keep. Promises are made in my estimation because it is permissible to break them with some viable excuse. Commitments are a much stronger bond between maker of the commitment and he/she that is anticipating an outcome. Promises have starting points and deadlines. Commitments have a beginning and is not a sprint, but instead a marathon.
As an example, how many of us have made a promise to a child that we were unable to keep because of work requirement? How many times have you told a child that you would be at that game, only to end in disappointment? How much hurt was there to go around? Had the parent made a commitment at the beginning of the season to see as many games as possible when work permitted can probably be better understood and lowered the expectation of you being at every game. Do not think commitment relinquishes responsibility by any stretch of the imagination.
Being committed to someone or some principal is for the long run. It survives difficult times. Leaders must remain committed to the organization and persons involved in the organization. Leaders that make promises provide allusions and false expectations. I had always thought that should I ever run for office (God perish the thought) I would not make campaign promises, but rather a commitment to do what is right, just, fair, equitable, and without self- deprivation. Otherwise, do not run for office.