Harvard Business Publishing

Marshall,
You've done a great job of capturing the essence of leadership from many perspectives. On my blog, I've written entries that deal with nearly all of the points you made, wherein I went into a bit more detail. I guess I can feel good about having hit on the same topics as you! Thanks for such a good summary.

Regards,
Nina
http://www.ninasimosko.com

Here are some links to my individual entries on these same topics:

* My teacher and mentor Paul Hersey always taught me that “leadership is not a popularity contest.” You, as a leader, have to be focused on achieving the mission. Sometimes this means disagreeing with your direct reports and taking a stand on tough issues.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/06/27/democratic-dictatorship-2/

* On the other hand, my friend and colleague, Jim Kouzes, points out that “leadership is not an unpopularity contest.” Great leaders focus on building positive, lasting relationships with the people they lead – and should be sensitive to how they are perceived by direct reports.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/04/02/it-takes-a-village/

* Begin with a philosophy of doing what is right while at the same time involving and empowering great people.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/04/02/it-takes-a-village/

* Ask yourself a simple question, “Is winning this battle worth it?” If you believe that this is an important issue for the company – stand your ground. If it is important to your direct reports and insignificant to the company, let it go.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/04/30/conceding-to-win/

* Try not to prove that your direct reports are wrong. Chances are that your direct reports are generally bright and interested in what they are doing – especially the ones that take the initiative to make suggestions. The fact that your ideas differ from their ideas does not always mean that they are wrong. As difficult as it may be to believe, sometimes you are wrong.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/07/02/actively-managing-careers/

* Listen and think before responding. Sometimes if you just back away and reflect, you will see things from a different and clearer perspective.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/07/09/if-you-can-only-focus-on-one-thing/

* If you can execute components of their ideas, do it. Your direct reports do not expect you to do everything that they suggest.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/06/27/democratic-dictatorship-2/

* If you finally just disagree, respectfully let them know that you have listened to their ideas, thought carefully about them and chosen not to execute their ideas at this time. Explain your logic. Let them know that you are not saying that they are wrong and point out that well-meaning, intelligent people can disagree.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/06/27/democratic-dictatorship-2/

* Don't win them all. Be open to going with their ideas when you can. When they disagree with you – and they prevail – support their ideas, just as you want them to support your ideas when you get your way.

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/07/02/actively-managing-careers/ and
http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/04/30/conceding-to-win/

Hi Marshall,

As I am not in a position of leading, it will be easier for me to give perspectives of what it is like to act as a subordinate:

a. Subordinates do their best to offer suggestions and ideas to their leaders/bosses and the organization.

b. Subordinates do their best to remain positive, despite feelings of uncertainty and a lack of awareness.

c. Subordinates work hard, even when they do not have the overarching or full picture of 'how' and 'what' is to be done.

d. Subordinates willingly aim to build 'real' relationships with their superiors. It may be a popularity contest, yet I think it is a way for subordinates to get in the 'good books' of the boss.

e. Subordinates are readily accept negative feedback, given that the feedback is dispensed fairly and provides useful direction for personal growth and forward movement.

In general, subordinates want to feel like they are valued, even if, figuratively speaking, they have not 'split the atom' or innovatively created a more efficient way of utilizing energy.

It's amazing....this interactive process spawns and ignites so many different thoughts. Your article successfully evoked thoughts that were not in my mind just a few hours ago.

My apologies for not directly answering your question about responding to and reacting to direct reports. Perhaps one day I will be wearing the other shoe and know what it is like to be receiving thoughts, ideas, and reports.

Overall, your article made me take a deeper look at both sides of the coin, both leader/subordinate.

I'm a big fan of the book People Styles At Work by Robert Bolton and Dorothy Grover Bolton. I've found that many disagreements with managers and co-workers are a result of comfort zone preferences rather than real technical disagreements.

I'd recommend getting to know one's style preference (Analytical, Amiable, Expresive or Driver) and those of your direct reports. If you find that you are disagreeing quite often, it could very well be due to personal work preferences.

Nina - Thank you for all of these URL connections!
Matthew - Thank you for your perspectives - and thorough analysis. It is good to look at this issue from both perspectives - manager and direct report.
Allen - Thank you for this reference and excellent observation!

I guess most of the rules for giving feedback also apply to this situation? ie. keep it factual and trying to keep emotion out of it when explaining why you disagree.

I think if you can do this then both sides will respect each other going forward.

Chris
http://learn2develop.blogspot.com

Marshall, having been in a management role in the past, I found it does require some personal sense of being centered and balanced in order to provide an authentic "open door" to subordinates' suggestions and new ideas. But there are of course times when leading is not necessarily democratic...that's where the popularity thing comes in. A leader has to role model and support respectful dialogue and thoughtful discussion with subordinates...but at the same time make decisions in line with their responsibilities.

By the way, I very much enjoyed your 07/24 podcast on Harvard Business IdeaCast related to leaderhip coaching. In less than 10 minutes you provided the clearest synopsis on the subject. Thank You!

Also, I would be interested to know how and when you became a Budhist. Thank You!

I believe that a key component of managing disagreements is around trust. If you have invested in your relationships and have a strong bond of trust, your ability to be honest and upfront is much higher.

Many a times, people will have different perspectives to yours however if they see you approaching the issue in an open, transparent and equitable manner and trust your judgement and your sense of fair play, they will take the disagreements in a more constructive manner.

I also believe that having an open dialogue and talking the issue through helps. As a supervisor, you have the 'power' to take a decision, however you also need to engage in an honest discussion and discuss the choices threadbare with your team. If you have done this, your ability to disagree yet remain committed and cohesive increases significantly.

I have always operated with these principles in mind when I have been leading a team.

Hi Marshall,

Thank you for another very interesting article. I think the best thing to do to communicate ideas and comments inside the team is by doing the right thing as a leader or as they say "leading by example". If you disagree with a subordinate or a peer, tell him openly that you disagree with his idea and your have a different point of view. Many thanks !

Chris - I never considered this, but your comment makes a lot of sense. The rules of feedback apply both ways!
Norm - I am glad that you enjoyed the podcast. I love making them! I have been a Buddhist for 30 years. To learn more about this, please visit www.MarshallGoldsmithLibrary.com and review the 'interviews and personal stories' section.
Rahul - I think that you have a great set of guidelines!
Mohamed - A good philosophy! When in doubt, tell the truth!

Marshall, As always you are direct and right to the point. I love and admire your style and succinctness. A couple tips I have heard from people I have known in my career:

1. An ounce of anticipation is worth a ton of consternation - Stan Barkey a retired senior manager with State Farm told me that that the best way to deal with subordinates is to anticipate possible and unavoidable problems just after you delegate something. He suggests saying the following:

a. "Play back to me what I've asked you to do and why it is important to what we are trying to accomplish" - it is humbling to realize how often you haven't been as clear as you thought you were. Also when people tell you why it's important, they feel more like an important part of the team instead of just a function.

b. "In the event that for any reason you are unable to get done what I've asked you, how do you want me to be with you? Since we are all interdependent on each other and my main concern is that everyone do what they have agreed to so others can rely on them, how should I react to you so you get it done sooner than later. For instance do you want me to come into your office, close the door and yell at you? Or just nudge you and say, 'Please get it done by tomorrow' (which will lessen my regard for you around review time)? Or just say, 'Just do the best you can'? or what?" - doing this then makes it easier to confront them later on by referencing back to the suggestion they gave you about how to deal with them.

2. Another consultant friend of mine suggested emboldening yourself by centering yourself (vs. acting hostile) and wrapping what you say in a principle. For instance he told me that when a direct report keeps messing up you say something like: "I am dangerously close to 'rooting against you' because when you say you'll do abc, you do cde. It doesn't make sense to have anyone on my team that I don't enthusiastically root for and you are one of those people I would like to root for. So level with me, what's getting in the way so we can solve it and get you back on track?" - the principle here is not wanting to root against someone which is way of communicating frustration without over resentment.

If anyone likes these tips please feel free to catch some of syndicated Tribune career advice columns at: http://markgoulston.com/solve-anything-with-dr-mark.

Marshall, As always you are direct and right to the point. I love and admire your style and succinctness. A couple tips I have heard from people I have known in my career:

1. An ounce of anticipation is worth a ton of consternation - Stan Barkey a retired senior manager with State Farm told me that that the best way to deal with subordinates is to anticipate possible and unavoidable problems just after you delegate something. He suggests saying the following:

a. "Play back to me what I've asked you to do and why it is important to what we are trying to accomplish" - it is humbling to realize how often you haven't been as clear as you thought you were. Also when people tell you why it's important, they feel more like an important part of the team instead of just a function.

b. "In the event that for any reason you are unable to get done what I've asked you, how do you want me to be with you? Since we are all interdependent on each other and my main concern is that everyone do what they have agreed to so others can rely on them, how should I react to you so you get it done sooner than later. For instance do you want me to come into your office, close the door and yell at you? Or just nudge you and say, 'Please get it done by tomorrow' (which will lessen my regard for you around review time)? Or just say, 'Just do the best you can'? or what?" - doing this then makes it easier to confront them later on by referencing back to the suggestion they gave you about how to deal with them.

2. Another consultant friend of mine suggested emboldening yourself by centering yourself (vs. acting hostile) and wrapping what you say in a principle. For instance he told me that when a direct report keeps messing up you say something like: "I am dangerously close to 'rooting against you' because when you say you'll do abc, you do cde. It doesn't make sense to have anyone on my team that I don't enthusiastically root for and you are one of those people I would like to root for. So level with me, what's getting in the way so we can solve it and get you back on track?" - the principle here is not wanting to root against someone which is way of communicating frustration without over resentment.

Marshall,

Excellent point regarding managing upwards. There is a great old movie about the similiar subject ' 12 clock High' starring Gregory Peck. The movie has many interesting managment theories,which you have already stated in your post.The key is we need to learn and excel in keeping our emotions in control while we are having a healthy conflict with our Direct reports.

Regards
Babu Kuttala

Mark - I am a great fan of yours - and appreciate your comments on my blog! Thank your friend Stan for his great idea! Thanks for both of these tips and your valuable reference.
Babu - It is interesting that you mention 'Twelve O'Clock High'. My mentor, Dr. Paul Hersey, taught me to use this as a case stuy in leadership training - and I have seen it at least 75 times. If you can get over the 'war' aspect, it is a wonderful movie about leadership. Thank you for this reference.

Hello Mr. Goldsmith, great topic!

Excellent points.

But if you're a committed subordinate as Matthew Polkinghorne mentions above you should have the right to disagree when you know the objective on hand better than your direct report. If your direct report is not focused on meeting business objectives and is commanding you to do something without proper information then the subordinate has every right to disagree. Any advice?

It very much depends on your relationship with your direct report. Direct reports should also be interested in subordinates’ success just as much in company’s success. A committed subordinate will only disagree when direct report does not have the all the information to make accurate decision. Direct report (a leader) should anticipate disagreement and should understand how to handle conflict without penalizing the subordinate.

How many battles should subordinate be willing to lose?

I suggest keeping egos out of it and moving on. Keep the relationship with Direct report but change your team if conflict between yourself and direct report arises more than once.

Bringing in a third unbiased person who DOES NOT benefit from the situation may help get the train back on track.

Thanks for your outstanding blog, Marshall!

Having a critical discussion (a discussion in which something is being criticized) requires at least one party to be able to keep things focused and objective, but that doesn't always mean that feelings won't be part of the discussion. Many of the critical discussions in which I am involved have a component that involves someone's feelings (fixing a problem that was in part caused because person "A" didn't notify person "B" happens, and sometimes it is because of the way person "B" reacts to bad news. Or the way person "A" feels about person "B". Or vice versa. Or a number of other things of have nothing to do with the "logic" of the problem). So if feelings are part of the problem, you have to be able to discuss them. The relationship between a boss and subordinate is just that - a relationship. While it is true that there are imbalances in the relationship that are easy to point out, there are few "equal" relationships in life - most have some imbalance. There are two unique things to remember when dealing with a boss. #1 - There are things about the business that they know and you don't - confidential things. If you knew what they knew, their actions might be more - congruent - with your expectations. #2 - Bosses can't have their authority usurped and if they (rightly or wrongly) believe you are doing that, they will have to take action. My usual advice is to be humble, respectful, and tentative - not acting as if you know all the answers, but showing that you are open to new data. It's not indecision to change your mind about an issue on the basis of new, compelling information - it's improvement.

Ajay - We may have a different interpreation of terms. By 'direct report' I mean the subordinate - not the manager. I like your ideas about influencing your manager!
Gregg - Thank you! I like your suggestions. You are right - no relationship is ever really an 'equal' power relationship. In fact the 'balance of power' may change with time and topic.

Your post more than adequately covered most of the relevant issues surrounding conflict with direct reports. However, one nugget of opportunity that wasn't directly addressed is that there are tremendous leadership development opportunities present in all disagreements.

My perspective is that disagreements are not battles to be won, but opportunities to be leveraged. If a leader can view disagreements as teaching and team building opportunities then conflicts won't be avoided, but will be converted into leadership gains across the enterprise. More thoughts along these lines can be found on my blog at http://www.n2growth.com/blog

Best wishes for continued success Marshall...

thanks for the article ... I had a disagreement with a subordinate, he emailed me the article later in the day.

Mike - Thank you for this reference - and for your interesting view of this topic. You suggestion about how to turn potential conflict into a developmental opportunity provides great food for thought.
Gordon - It is indeed a small world. I hope that my post is helpful for you and your direct report!

There is no one right way to dealing with conflict. And the pointers given show just that. For example,
"leadership is not a popularity contest" but “leadership is not an unpopularity contest”. While we should take our stand on what we believe to be "right", we should also be open to listening to the opinions and ideas of others - they may not have the same idea as me but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. Sometimes, taking time out to listen to other people actually helps in our personal growth and development too, makes us sensitive to other people's feelings and opens up our horizons to other perspectives. Sometimes I may have to accept that my idea may not be the best idea. If I feel strongly for my stand, I will highlight my reason/purpose/objective so that they are able to understand why the change has to take place. In that way, they are not merely carrying out a directive but they also understand the purpose and reason behind it - it makes the change more acceptable.

Carolest - Thank you. At the end of the day, just listen to all of these ideas, ask yourself, "What is right?" - and do that.

Very good summary, Dr. Goldsmith
I have worked in innovation all of my life and this has been a particularly sensible issue for me. In cross cultural teams or expatriates, this is a matter of surviving almost. Several principles I have applied and that have proved useful in creating cohesive & lasting teams around the world:
1) When you do not like their ideas, you have always your own reasons. Respectfully, let them know the reasons.
2) Do not communicate just your decision but take the time to elaborate an argumentation that explain the consequences, advantages and disadvantages that their proposal might have for the goal they pretend to pursue.
3) Take your time and listen to their counter arguments. Be ready to change your opinion. If you doubt, recognize their point and allow some time to think it over.
4) Always appreciate even the wrong contributions
My regards and thank you for reading

Marshall,
What a great job of capturing the essence of leadership from so many perspectives,in such a neat summary.It does requires some personal sense of being centered and balanced in order to provide an authentic "open door" to subordinates' suggestions and new ideas. Now days the leader has to be democratic, be able and like to listen, for so a great deal is learned from listening carefully, responsive to innovative ideas ("Involve me and I will understand"),be able to place the mental focus on the creative person he is listening to and place the focus outside himself and his inner own self - centered thoughts that are screaming towards an emotional outlet;Staying present will
certainly help him to decrease the bad habit of worrying about the future and what is to follow;
Stay open, in order to pick up the interesting new ideas with which your subordinate is willing
to pleasantly surprise you, without allowing yourself to get bored ,since then you hardly pay any attention etc. After all you are all one big family in the organization you created and "The world
is such a fine place, worth fighting for and too early to be left for good." There must be some
misunderstanding or slip up in the line, not to be able to simply dissolve(like aspirin in water) such
minor problems like chaos, complexity(Structural +Interactive), disorder, terrorism,global warming,etc,
by using boundary - less thinking, integrating the potential energy of our mighty management theories
to start thinking together, rethinking, redesigning(1,2,3,4,5,6, and simply sliding on a thinking road map)." In or into harmony or coherence"- "Which way ought 'WE' to go from here? We shall take the path of purposeful action to unleash our Potential+Secret Power, starting to constructively connect those around us( achieving endless intellectual bliss among us, beginning to dance and embrace the "MARKETS' we will jointly create, working together, investing together, designing together, building together, learning together,' thinking without thinking','managing without managing', learning to unlearn, focusing on what is unknown, doubting(any given facts, propositions, beliefs, assumptions), developing and adopting novel methods, working with conjectures and staying tentative ("research as a paradigm of practice", in contrast to " profession as a paradigm of practice" that will focus on expertise, time tested methods, accumulated experience, standards of performance, and so forth.
But my 'Essential Question ' is: How will you handle the following simple and human report from
some subordinate, if you were to receive it?

Dear Boss,

I have enjoyed working here these past several years. You have paid me very
well, given me benefits beyond belief. I have 3-4 months off per year and a
pension plan that will pay my salary till the day I die and a health plan
that most people can only dream about.

Despite this I plan to take the next 12-18 months to find a new position.
During this time I will show up for work when it is convenient. In addition
I fully expect to draw my full salary and all the other perks associated
with my current job. Oh yeah, if my search for this new job proves
fruitless, I will be back with no loss in pay or status. Before you say
anything, remember that you have no choice in the matter. I can and will do
this.

Sincerely,

Every Senator or Congressman running for President.

(Try that at your job and tell me how it works out.)

What I've noticed about people, mostly people in management is that they have incredibly huge egos. Frankly, they can't handle opinion sharing discussions; especially when their suggestions are the ones being critiqued.

Hello Dr. Goldsmith,

I enjoy your articles greatly including the current one. I would say that first and foremost for a boss is to be honest and staying away from favoritism. Once these two basic points are proven to the subordinates. They will be fine even when their great idea is shot down.

Thank you for this article.

With very best wishes,

Ali

Jeffrey Immelt, GE's CEO, has received a lot of publicity recently for fostering "imagination breakthroughs" by encouraging managers to think deeply about innovations that will ensure GE's longer-term success. He has vowed that he will protect those working on the breakthroughs from the "budget slashers" focused on short-term success. Questions that this effort raises include: (1) Why so much publicity? (2) Isn't "deep thinking" what leaders are paid to do? and (3) Why do these kinds of effort require so much protection?

In their new book, Marketing Metaphoria, Gerald and Lindsay Zaltman suggest some answers to the questions. In decrying the lack of what they call "deep thinking" among managers and especially those responsible for marketing, they suggest some things that get in its way. Among them are: (1) reluctance to take risk, especially when short-term performance is at stake, (2) the fear of disruption resulting from "thinking differently and deeply," (3) the potential psychological cost of changing one's mind resulting from deep thinking, and (4) the lack of information providing deep insights on which to base deep thinking.

According to the Zaltmans, while nearly all research techniques commonly used today probe humans only at their conscious level, the subconscious (offering deep insights) really determines behavior, and that explains why humans don't behave as they say they will, whether in buying or other behaviors. As a result, for example, four in five product introductions perform below expectations.

The Zaltmans expand on ideas they have been studying for some years, namely that strategies of all kinds can be based on insights gained from listening in a disciplined way for metaphors that relatively small numbers of people (consumers, managers, public servants, etc.) use in the course of extended, probing interviews. In these interviews, the object is to use "surface metaphors," like "I am drowning in debt," to identify "metaphor themes," like "Money is like liquid," and the associated "deep metaphor," in this case "resource." They claim that just seven deep metaphors—balance (equilibrium), transformation (changing states or status), journey (as in life), container (keeping things in and keeping things out), connection (feelings of belonging or exclusion), resource (providing survival), and control—describe 70 percent of our inner feelings. The objective is to find deep metaphors that individuals share in common (a true market segment or a basis for resolving a confIict) rather than differences. If we would just take the time to explore them we would be able to realize such things as more substantial, farsighted, successful new product introductions (such as the hybrid auto ten years ago at Toyota); more successful conflict resolution; and more significant innovation, à la GE, in general.

This raises several questions: Have the Zaltmans hit on a basic problem of leadership and management today? Are there appropriate responses other than the one that GE is pursuing? What is your organization doing to combat the absence of deep thinking in decision-making? What are you doing to combat it in thinking about your own life inside and outside the organization?

HBS Cases: Walking Away from a $3 Billion Deal
The Time is Right for Creative Capitalism
The Inner Life of Leaders
Creating a Positive Professional Image
Strategy Execution and the Balanced Scorecard

Fernando - Yours is a great check list for all of us!
Michael - Perhaps the people in Washington should read your post.
Zach - I agree with you regarding SOME leaders - but definitely not ALL leaders. My clients amaze me with their willingness to listen to feedback.
Ali - Please check back on my old posts - and read the one on favoritism. I hope that you like it!
Henry - I have an upcoming post of Marketing Executives. I hope that it will be useful for you.

Marshall, thanks for your response. It shows that you are a man of dignity,a good sense of humor
and a truly great coach. Perhaps we have something in common: We both seem to respect the Prof.
Russell L. Ackoff, who was my ' Fulbright Mentor' and has strongly influenced my way of thinking
on some purpose for the last 30 years. I would rate him N0-1, as a management systems thinker taking into account his fantastic intellectual 'Socratic' input in modern systems science and I am not a conformist.
Concerning the people in Washington, I believe based on my knowledge of American culture that
the U.S. has a tremendous potential for the realization of radical changes 'on the move'. It clearly needs to redesign some of its major institutions and views to meet the new challenges of the modern world. This can not happen other night and may well take the following 10 years to come. One is for sure -The American intellectuals should not stand isolated in this possess, but take a firm stand and commitment, since the stakes are decisive and we all deserve a better future. As R. Ackoff would
say:"The future is not contained in the past."

Michael - I agree on all counts. Go for it!