Good people often behave badly in times of turmoil. Some engage in back stabbing, rationalizing that someone else is about to stab them. Some exclude key people on important issues because those others would only obstruct progress. Some whisper about others, claiming that those others would only respond angrily if addressed. Some use anger as a weapon, discouraging valuable dissent on the grounds that the dissenters are really obstructionists. And, almost universally, they impute the worst possible motives to one another with the claim that only a villain would behave in the way those others do.
The brief reflections here are based upon having been in leadership positions 11 times now during organizational transitions—nonprofit/NGO, corporate and governmental. The suggestions below are aspirations, not claims of personal success. At the end I’ll provide a brief update on my latest engagement and my impending availability.
When a leader takes responsibility for calming the roiled seas and charting a new course, it seems to me s/he will derive great advantage from several key attributes and behaviors:
Listening: People have to tell their tales, in part to justify behavior that they know is less than exemplary. They need to vent and, then, to create new, better stories.
Calm: People will try to draw the leader’s anxiety to the level of their own, as a sort of emotional vindication. And as their emotions escalate they will dig themselves into unproductive positions. By simply exuding calm assurance the leader can do much to reduce the turmoil.
Rule setting: I find it useful to ask people to tell their stories in ways that don’t point fingers at others. Most won’t be able to do it, but the request sets a tone and gives the leader a way of tamping things down when the rhetoric becomes too intense.
Selective affirmation: This is right out of Psychology 101. It seems to me the leader needs to affirm the emotions without affirming the conclusions [e.g., “That must have been very hurtful to you. I wonder how the other person perceived it.”]
Discouraging attribution of motives: When fearful and angry, people often want to reinforce their positions by ascribing evil intent to their adversaries (e.g. “the only reason she would have done that was that she doesn’t care about the mission; she’s just in it for herself). Once those motives take on an aura of truth any bad behavior on the speaker’s part becomes an act of virtue—because fighting evil is inherently virtuous. So, I think it is important to directly, if gently, confront this. (I try to use phrases like, “I understand why, seeing the facts as you do, you would come to that conclusion. But, isn’t it possible that his motive was…).
Trust: It is important that the leader not jump to conclusions, that s/he assume that each person involved is both well meaning and reasonable. The leader does her cause great damage by appearing not to listen or to leap to prejudicial judgments.
Mitigate risks: That said, some people will prove that they don’t deserve the trust. If most people think that Blackbeard is a cut throat there’s a pretty good chance he is. So, though, both Blackbeard and the organization may benefit from trust, nonetheless, it would be wise to think about how cut throat behavior might damage the organization. The leader can, then, be prepared in advance to deal with it.
Tie back to mission and organizational values: Finally, and perhaps most importantly, people, in working, want to identify with a mission and a set of values. In turmoil, lots of other values and emotions get in the way. It seems to me the leader should be constantly puling conversations back to the mission and the core (or aspirational) values of the organization. (e.g “I understand why you did that, but if we’re committed to a transparent and supportive workplace aren’t there other approaches available?”)
Safe Kids is a subsidiary of Children's National Medical Center, $700 million pediatric hospital that is in the top ten in the US and rising. Safe Kids was founded 20 year ago by a couple of visionaries who remain committed leaders--Martin Eichelberger, a trauma surgeon, and Herta Feely, a professional communicator (and now novelist).
It operates in 17 countries and is focused on reducing accidental injuries and deaths in children. With the leadership of Safe Kids' affiliates accidental deaths in children are down 80% on Germany, 45% in the US and by similar numbers in other developed countries. Unfortunately, accidents are still the largest killers of children in most of these countries and with industrialization and mechanization these tragedies are rising in the developing world; so there is much work yet to be done.
I served 18 months as Safe Kids’ Interim President and CEO. With extraordinary board leadership, a huge commitment on the part of the hospital and a very talented and dedicated staff we were able to:
Perhaps most important of all, just prior to my departure, we hired an extraordinary leader to take Safe Kids through the next phase of its life-saving work. Mitch Stoller is the guy who led both the Christopher Reeve Foundation and the Lance Armstrong Foundation to national and international prominence. I hope you'll keep an eye on Safe Kids Worldwide. Under Mitch's leadership I anticipate you'll be greatly impressed by what you see.
© Pat Nichols, July 2008. All rights reserved.