Odd

I recently watched a movie entitled Odd Thomas¹ that depicted a person who was given the first name “Odd.” Mr. Thomas captured the essence of his first name in his behaviors; he claimed the ability to see dead people and demons and speak with ghosts. What was most striking about his peculiarity was how people around him reacted; people seemed to accept him, even the police. While he was different, strange, and perhaps weird, he became known for his talent to prevent disasters – they knew having him around was a benefit to the collective community and often saved lives.

While this was a silly movie and the critics were negative, the movie has many implications for leaders and organizational life; it is a metaphor for the anomalous yet talented worker whom leaders desperately need and want around. Yes, this person can be annoying and a pain, but as long as he or she is actively engaged in the business and exhibits strong critical thinking skills, everyone should applaud his/her presence – he or she is probably the best candidate to share with the leader exactly what he or she needs to hear.  

The acceptance of what is has been preached by scholars and practitioners. Jim Collins in Good to Great² claims that “good-to-great companies…infused the entire process [of decision-making] with the brutal facts of reality.”^{2 (p. 69)} He also cautions that reality can be unwittingly trumped by a leader who is strongly charismatic and shields followers from reality. In a study comparing Pitney Bowes to other organizations, Collins reveals that researchers found less optimal results when “…the top leader led with such force or instilled such fear that people worried more about the leader – what he would say, what he would think, what he would do – than they worried about external reality and what it would do to the company.” ^{2 (p. 72)} This was not the case at Pitney Bowes because the focus was on the external realities and not on the leader’s needs.

Further, Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan³ devoted an entire book, Confronting Reality, to the idea of seeking and understanding truth. “To confront reality is to recognize the world as it is, not as you wish it to be, and have the courage to do what must be done, not what you’d like to do.”^{3 (pp. 6-7)}  The authors add that it is natural and human to create a personal view of the world, primarily because it is easier and more comfortable. However, businesses don’t have this luxury because of the natural tendency toward decline and entropy.⁴

Having an Odd Thomas on the team can create a more open and pioneering enterprise and provide the necessary assistance to keep the organization grounded in reality. Also, the Groupthink research offers some valuable action items that leaders can draw on as a solution.

Groupthink is a negative response to being in a powerfully unified group. There have been notable historical examples where Groupthink led to poor decision-making, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, escalation of military action in Vietnam and other events.⁵ It evolves from the power of the group and the forces it exerts on its members. Groupthink occurs “when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.” ^{5 (p. 361)} According to Irving Janis, when a group has succumbed to Groupthink, some of the following indicators may be present:⁵

• The group may believe it cannot fail.
• The group may be overly defensive of decisions and fail to recognize red flags; it may push aside information that challenges the veracity of the decision.
• The group may see itself as good and right even when there are ethical issues to consider.
• Outsiders may be considered suspicious and/or ignorant.
• There may be implicit and/or explicit pressure to conform.
• Members may have a fear of being ostracized and, as a result, self-edit their comments in order to stay in the group’s good graces.
• They may believe the decision is unanimous even when there may be evidence of dissent.
• The group may succumb to the bias that new information is threatening and should be avoided.

When a group has fallen prey to Groupthink, there are ways to overcome some of the problems. For starters, a leader’s devotion to “critical inquiry,” which would include a review of “the pros and cons of [any] alternatives.”^{5 (p. 363)} The Janis Model also offers antidotes, and several are related to inserting an Odd Thomas into the equation:⁵

• Invite one or more outside experts to participate in the decision process; this can expose the group to different viewpoints.
• Appoint a member to play devil’s advocate.
• Require the leader to remain neutral during deliberations so as not to influence the conversation.

·         Make it acceptable for positive and negative views to be expressed.

Even when a group has not yielded to Groupthink, the outspoken odd thinker can play an important part in any decision by assuring different viewpoints are considered.

Other techniques that can supplement the above ideas:

• Require at least one person to argue against the consensus decision – an appointed odd thinker.
• Use techniques such as the nominal group technique that requires members to write down their views and read it to the group.

There are always going to be strange and odd people in organizations. If they are engaged and demonstrate critical thinking skills, they should be embraced rather than shunned. Groupthink research supports the notion of an Odd Thomas and offers action items that can prevent disastrous decisions. While some of the antidotes can make decisions more lengthy and difficult,⁵ it can also avert organizational disaster.

Feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Sommers, S. (Writer) (2013). Odd Thomas [Film]. In J. Baldacchi, H. Kaplan & S. Sommers (Producer). USA: Fusion Films, Future Films.

² Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins.

³ Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2004). Confronting Reality: Doing What Matters to Get Things Right. New York: Crown Business.

⁴ Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

⁵ Janis, I. (1995). Groupthink. In J.T. Wren (Ed.), Leader's Companion (pp. 360 - 373). New York: Free Press.

Annoying and Ineffective Leader Behaviors

Leaders, particularly the inexperienced, can exhibit some annoying behaviors -- behaviors that ultimately diminish their effectiveness as a leader.

Leadership researchers have identified a behavior style or approach called transactional leadership (described in earlier publications). A general definition of transactional leadership is as follows: "Leaders who guide or motivate their followers in the direction of established goals by clarifying role and task requirements."^{1 (p.383)} Transactional leadership comprises three dimensions: (1) Contingent Reward, (2) Management by Exception -- Active and (3) Management by Exception -- Passive.¹ Some researchers have also added a laissez-faire dimension to the transactional category.¹ 

Contingent Reward behaviors embody an exchange between workers and the leader. The leader sets the goals and workers are rewarded with pay for the effort and achievement of the designated objectives. Most employment relationships are founded upon this kind of transaction -- pay for performance. Thus transactional leadership initiates the relationship between leaders and workers.

The Management by Exception Active and Passive dimensions round out the transactional style with two methods for monitoring work to ensure work requirements are fulfilled correctly.  The active manager keeps a watchful eye on the worker's performance and his/her close involvement enables preemptive action if errors are detected or the achievement of goals might be hindered. That is, he/she "watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards, takes corrective action."^{1 (p. 383)} Alternatively, the passive management by exception approach has a lower degree of involvement with the follower. While monitoring exists, it is only after the errors have occurred that the leader takes action; "intervenes only if standards are not met."^{1 (p. 383)}

Dangers of Management by Exception

Management by Exception Active (MBEA) can be viewed as an annoying form or style of leadership because of its impact. Its use should be restricted to when a follower's skill sets are weak, he/she needs constant guidance and/or the organizational circumstance requires vigilant attention by the leader, such as in a crisis. Otherwise it is best to be more empowering or risk harming the worker motivation. Workers are more motivated when work autonomy increases¹ and thus the leader’s excessive involvement, like MBEA, is counterproductive.  

As stated in previous publications, leaders need to calibrate their approach to the workers based on their skills and the organizational situation, or risk negatively impacting outcomes. Examples of this kind of behavior and the potential negative consequences abound.

I recall a senior leader in an organization snooping on his management team. This leader surreptitiously recruited workers from high and low places in the hierarchy of the organization as a way of gathering information and keeping tabs. His objective was to keep a handle on what was happening in the organization and to check up on the leaders who were his direct reports.

It is a known fact that leaders do not always get told what is going on in their own organization and thus mechanisms like this can serve the leader well. However, the approach used can have positive or negative consequences. The problem isn't the gathering of information by the leader. However, if the objective deviates from keeping up with what is happening and shifts toward monitoring direct reports or preempting mistakes (unless the circumstances or workers warrant), then it becomes a problem. If the leader is using people in the hierarchy, these secret conversations are akin to inviting workers to tattle on their bosses.

A similar set of behaviors is when a leader actively pursues information similar to how a detective might seek information. Direct reports learn of this behavior when the leader seems to know everything that is happening: "I heard your meeting was very negative" or "The workers came to me and said...," etc. This direct report is likely to sense that he or she is being constantly watched. It can feel like the leader is hovering in a helicopter preparing to swoop in to prevent problems or correct behaviors. Helicopter leadership is a cousin of micro-management and it suggests to the workers they are not trusted. Not a good feeling.

The passive side of management by exception can be interpreted just as poorly when the workers are corrected after mistakes happen. The thought might be, "Why did you wait?" or "Why are you spending time trying to catch me in mistakes?" It is similar to helicopter leadership, but instead the helicopter remains at a distance until there is a problem -- then action is taken.

Of course, the need for active and passive management by exception is diminished if the leader hires the right people in the first place. Leaders who do not trust the people who work for them or are not trusting people to begin with probably should not be in the leader role.

Leaders can exhibit annoying behaviors. They certainly want to know what is going on in the organization, but how they go about finding information out can be either helpful or harmful to worker motivation. Management by Exception active and passive can be negative if handled improperly.

Feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Rules

Leaders have a myriad of responsibilities in their organizations. Predominantly the focus is on the primary managerial outcomes: profits, revenues, mission achievement and other objectives. Leaders know they cannot reach their goals without paying attention to the human and behavioral outcomes in the organization. That is, the leader needs to guide his or her behaviors, actions and decisions toward improvements in job satisfaction, productivity and citizenship behavior; simultaneously, these actions and behaviors may also serve to reduce or diminish turnover, absences and workplace deviance.² One of the dilemmas of leadership is the placement of boundaries or the establishment of rules and procedures with the key question being how much to proceduralize the work that is done in the organization.

Effective management of an organization requires the act of "organizing, planning, decision-making, controlling and leading." ^{1 (p. 8)} Without adequate handling of these variables the organization becomes inefficient and ineffective. Effective management serves as the platform on which leadership is built. If the platform is not solid, then leaders will spend too much time on management issues (e.g. human resources and perhaps EEO issues) and less time on implementing change (the primary function of a leader). One challenge that leaders and managers must grapple with is the degree of infrastructure and rules that must be established to provide an underpinning for efficiency and effectiveness. 

It is common for inexperienced leaders and managers to establish too many rules, but there is a point at which the rules and procedures become counterproductive. Once the workers perceive that there are too many conventions to follow, they are likely to "shut down" because a belief is formed that they are unable to meet the requirement and they might think, “Why bother?” I recall my first managerial experience running an ice cream store (early undergraduate years) and how rigid I was with the workers. While few would disagree with procedures I enacted, the way I imposed the requirements caused a revolt among the workers; they all felt restricted and objectified. No leader wants this type of reaction. Leaders must recognize that there is a tension between the level of needed rules versus allowances for the degree of independence, autonomy and freedoms workers desire on the job. Worker motivation is expected to increase as the level of autonomy increases.²

The question remains to what degree should there be set procedures. Without rules, the ice cream store would probably be about as clean as a dorm room -- not an inviting image. Still, how many and what procedures need to be in place? There is no firm guideline to answer this question, but leaders must work at it.

One of the answers may come from the purposes of the organization and the type of work performed. The management literature identifies two behavioral models in organization design. The first, System 1, is characterized as a top-down "rigid and inflexible"^{1 (p. 374)} approach to business management. It focuses on the task of the organization to the exclusion of the human factors that are often deemed important for leading effectively; it is inward-focused and may even view employees as machines. There is a certain narcissism associated with this kind of organization -- the top leaders may think they have all of the answers … and they behave that way. This model might also appear in a manufacturing environment or in high-performance work where a single deviation from an established pattern can prove disastrous (surgical team or airline flight deck).¹

A System 4 design is nearly the opposite in that it is focused on the people and the task. It is characterized by inclusion and engages workers in an innovative process; it is an inclusive environment and views workers as individuals and partners.¹ In this kind of organization, goals are often set collectively, which breeds commitment, acceptance and support. The Facebook organization is an exemplar of this model, almost out of necessity, because it requires the generation of new ideas to sustain itself.³  They use frequent brainstorming sessions to listen and gather thoughts. "Most such 'hackathons' last a day... [and] Zuckerberg says about 40 ideas emerged from the [December 2014] event."^{3 (p. 48)}

From a leader’s perspective, the question still remains about how many rules and procedures to enforce. If a leader adopts too few, then chaos might reign and the leader loses control over the business environment. Alternatively, more rules increase the level of control and may restrict the freedoms (autonomy and independence) that are motivational to many workers.² Innovation also decreases.

This – like other choices of leader effectiveness – is among the more vital because of its direct impact on the managerial outcomes. Leaders face a variety of dilemmas in leading others – too little and too much can overpower and be harmful.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

1 Griffin, R.W. (2011). Management (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

2 Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

3 Stone, B., & Frier, S. (2014). “Facebook's Next Decade.” Bloomberg Businessweek magazine (Feb. 3-9, 2014), pp. 44-49.

Self-Leadership

I recently had the opportunity to listen to Steve Jobs address Stanford University's 2005 graduating class; it is a powerful speech and everyone should listen to it from time to time. If interested, here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

I believe he offered important messages for leaders.

Jobs did not become an effective leader overnight. He expanded his abilities only after some setbacks, and the most notable was being fired from Apple, a company he had founded; he said it was one of the best things that ever happened to him. In translation, being an effective leader does not spring from reading a book (or a blog) but instead from experience and time. In fact, in Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell claims mastery occurs only after 10,000 hours of experience.¹ But certainly it is not just putting in the time. Like earning a college degree, it is not the piece of paper that matters but the effort, energy and attention one exerted while attending. So it goes with being an effective leader, and reaching mastery is about learning something along the way.

If it is about pushing oneself forward during those 10,000 hours, then what needs to be done?  What is the starting point or path that needs to be followed to gain mastery in leadership?  The primary message conveyed from Jobs, while not explicitly stated, is that becoming an effective leader starts with self-leadership; that is, leading others begins at home. Self-leadership is defined as the 'process of leading oneself.' ^{2 (p. 5)}

Early leadership theories hypothesized that leaders held magical characteristics and connected them to special "traits, qualities and abilities."^{3 (p. 20)} Even so, research was unable to confirm a consistent set of qualities. Nonetheless, three characteristics stand out today and, when present, seem to demonstrate a leader's ability to develop into effectiveness⁵ and become adept self-leaders.

The first is emotional intelligence. "Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a person's ability to (1) perceive emotions in self and others, (2) understand the meaning of these emotions and (3) regulate one's emotions accordingly..." ^{4(p. 112)} While researchers are not convinced of the veracity of this model, it offers a very important skill set. That is, leaders need self-awareness to recognize and interpret what is happening within oneself and extrapolate to the type of behavioral response it can cause. This is vital since leaders are always on stage and their behavior provides a view screen for mimicry from followers. "For better or worse, it is not unusual for a company to unwittingly internalize and reproduce the personality and behavioral patterns of its CEO."^{5 (p. 11)} This fact increases the importance of understanding and then regulating one's behavior.

The second characteristic of self-leadership is social intelligence. Social intelligence is about the effective management of relationships: "...think of 'Social Intelligence' as a shorthand term for being intelligent, not just about our relationships but also in       them."^{6 (p. 11)} Since leadership is about guiding individuals or groups of individuals, managing these relationships is crucial; it includes being aware of the social interactions and a keen sense of the direction the interface is taking and responding in a way that leads to a desirable outcome; it includes one's ability to communicate and interact effectively.⁶ There is no doubt of its importance to leaders and leadership; this is a learned skill.

The final component bridges the two characteristics -- EI and Social Intelligence -- and is called self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is a "personality trait that measures an individual's ability to adjust his or her behavior to external factors." ^{4 (p. 141)} Adaptability is a central component of effective leadership; it enables a leader to adjust his/her approach to different contexts and followers. While a typical leader will tend to behave based on what is comfortable -- perhaps a task focus over that of a relationship focus -- he or she cannot afford to lead the same all the time; the consequence can be poor results.

During Jobs' speech, there was also another action underlying his message. That is, he became an observer of his own results – the outcomes he received from what he did – and used this information to incorporate new approaches in the future. In previous publications, I described a model that can structure this review. The model is called "Action - Observation - Reflection" (AOR) ^{7 (pp. 52 - 62)} and is an essential discipline enabling one’s ability to learn and grow from mistakes.

Steve Jobs' message essentially was that effectiveness is about living life fully and in a certain way. Leaders must start by building self-leadership skills and the associated characteristics: emotional intelligence, social intelligence and monitoring. Only on the path to mastering oneself can one garner the ability to lead others.

Feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

² Manz, C.C., & Neck, C.P. (2004). Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

³ Daft, R.L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson Southwestern.

⁴ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

⁵ Goldman, A. (2009). Transforming Toxic Leaders. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.

⁶ Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence: The Revolutionary New Science of Human Relationships. New York: Bantam Dell.

⁷ Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Irwin.

Success Factors

A recent editorial in the New York Times Sunday Review¹ revealed why certain groups have advanced in society more than others. The article described three learned traits that when present accelerate the potential for long-term success on various measures. The first trait is a "a deep-seated belief in [one's] exceptionality." ^{1 (p. 1)} The second trait is a strange contrast to the first and is the conviction that what one does is never "good enough" (the article calls this low self-esteem). While the second trait could be viewed as a drive for perfectionism, the article is referring to a healthy striving for progress. The third trait is the control of one's own behavior and more specifically "impulse control."¹ These individuals restrain their negative behaviors.  

The article also identified the various cultural groups that have excelled  -- Indian-Americans, Iranians, Lebanese, Chinese-Americans, Mormons, Jews, and Nigerians.¹ The article revealed that it was not a gift of birth or wealth but rather a formation of the three traits in their children. In other words, these traits are accessible and can be instilled by all parents.  

What was most troubling about the article's message was that American society now holds only the superiority belief.¹  The article suggests American society has become accepting (leading to entitlement) and has waned on impulse control, whereby it is perfunctory to cut people off in traffic, "lose it" when things don't go our way or have fun at the expense of others.   It is important to understand the message of this Op-Ed piece in the context of leading others. 

Leaders need a significant degree of confidence, and a sense of superiority is a parallel attitude; it is reasonable that these beliefs enable the accomplishment of objectives in the complex environments typically faced. However, leaders must also have a degree of humility to counterbalance the behaviors these ideas might generate; know-it-all leaders rarely survive. Thus, one could say that part of being superior is the recognition of fallibility; an odd combination but needed.

With regards to the not-good-enough belief, leaders must accept that in one's personal development is always and forever a work in progress -- never finished. This is needed regardless of the continuous messaging from their parents that they are always doing well.¹ How can a leader make this happen? A possible answer is to resist the natural temptation to satisfice. Satisficing is "the tendency to search for alternatives only until one is found that meets some minimum standards." ^{2 (p. 284)} When leaders allow this they are accepting lower-quality outcomes.  

The final trait regards impulse control; leaders do not have the luxury of behaving as they wish. Instead, a leader is always on stage and always being scrutinized by those who are following. A leader who lashes out at any worker will reduce his or her ability to lead that person and or others. Leaders need to exercise more control than others in the workplace; they can earn the right to be more relaxed once trust has been earned. Until that time, a leader needs to be sensitive to what their behaviors and words cause.  For example, the leader who berates a staff member in a meeting may engender fear among the witnesses. 

So far I have described the importance of leaders becoming unconsciously competent in these three traits (all are important), but what about the fact that workers may enter the workplace with only a sense of superiority? What is a leader to do? Many researchers believe that society is experiencing an increase in the trait of narcissism.³ If true, this confirms a deep-seated problem in our society and its workers. Leaders do not have the means to fix this issue, but they are compelled to respond.  

The antidote may rest in three mechanisms. The first is to create an organizational culture that requires continuous improvement.  Culture is defined as "a system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations." ^{4 (p. 671)}  This means the leader will need to instill a burning desire among organizational members that "we must always improve." This shared understanding can override features of the missing traits.

The second is to incorporate into the cultural belief system that respect, integrity, honesty and fairness are the only acceptable behaviors allowed. Such a culture recognizes that impulses exist but are not always to be acted upon. 

Finally, leaders can act to increase motivational levels by attending to the characteristics of a job.⁴ For example, if a leader communicates the importance or purpose of the work, individuals will become more vested⁴ and more willing to go beyond levels of "good enough." In addition, providing ongoing feedback about how well one is doing can serve to illuminate gaps between desired and actual results; with this knowledge, workers may improve and strive to close known gaps. Most are willing to do this when it is known they are falling short.  

A final idea for improving is to make identification of the traits a part of the selection process and avoid hiring, to the extent possible, those who do not hold all three characteristics. 

Three traits when combined are important success factors, according the New York Times article.¹ The superiority trait is the only trait that U.S. society currently holds, which suggests there are deficiencies that need to be addressed by leaders in organizations. Ideas to work toward this solution have been identified. 

Feel free to make comments. 

Reference

¹ Chua, A., & Rubenfeld, J. (2014, Jan. 26, 2014). What Drives Success? [Op-Ed]: New York Times.

²  Griffin, R.W. (2011). Management (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

³ Twenge, J.M., & Campbell, W.K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic. New York: Free Press.

⁴ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Habits

I have had many opportunities to observe students and corporate executives execute projects that have had far-reaching consequences (i.e. graduation for the student and business success for the executives).  On many occasions I have been surprised by what I witnessed: Rather than considering the final end state to be delivered by the project, followed by a plan to implement, many simply started working. To what end no one knew, but doing something felt good. The need is understandable; most want to drive forward and do something, anything at all, to claim they are not wasting time. However, it is erroneous.

As a result of these observations in my courses, I decided that it was important to offer a path to guide student actions on projects. Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Successful People¹ offered appropriate habits or behaviors that would be helpful, with the added benefit of being usable across many venues. Covey’s work¹ has wide-ranging appeal; it offers foundational habits we all should consider and use in our daily personal and work lives. The habits can also benefit leaders and their effectiveness.

Covey defines habit “as the intersection of knowledge, skill and desire.  Knowledge is the theoretical what to do and the why. Skill is the how to do. And desire is the motivation, the want to do.”  ^{1 (p.47)} All three are necessary to be a habit.¹  

Here are the 7 habits and their implication for leaders:¹

Habit 1: Be Proactive^TM – Move forward continuously and take responsibility.

Leaders should take heed that this is the platform by which leadership rests; leaders cannot retreat behind the cloak of their position, blend in and wait, but instead must engage and take action. When leaders are not proactive, they are likely to be considered passive, laissez-faire or simply non-leaders; this is not the role. “The difference between those who exercise initiative and those who don’t is literally the difference between night and day…a 5000-plus percent difference,” “act or be acted upon.”^{1 (p. 76)}

Habit 2: Begin With the End in Mind^TM – Start the resolution of all problems or projects first by understanding the outcome desired. This is a starting place for executive and student projects.

It is troublesome when a project moves forward without a clearly defined end state; it is hard for a project to reach a destination that is not known. It takes time and energy to define the ultimate goal, but it is essential. “We are more in need of a vision or destination and compass…and less in need of a roadmap.” ^{1 (p.100)}  At the macro level of an organization, the future state is based on its overall mission and the related objectives; at the project level, it is the mission of the project that is of importance.

Habit 3: Put First Firsts First ^TM – Do the important things first. Otherwise, there will not be time to get to the big stuff. 

Building relationships, planning and other critical items are essential parts of the "important but not urgent" to-do list.¹ Since the variables are not urgent, each will not be acted upon unless there is a habit to encourage attention. This spotlight can lead to “vision, perspective, balance, discipline, control and [fewer] crises.”^{1 (p.154)} It is also necessary to devote energy to the “important and    urgent” while avoiding those variables deemed unimportant.¹

Habit 4: Think Win/Win ^TM – Seek solutions where everyone wins.

Effective conflict outcomes arise from collaboration, which means willing opponents seek solutions to expand the pie rather than simply dividing it up or carving out one's share at the expense of others. Collaboration requires both parties to be willing to work toward this goal; when used, it usually signals a desire for both a relationship and substantive outcome. This habit guides leaders to adopt this posture first. “Win/Win is a frame of mind and heart that constantly seeks mutual benefit in all human interactions.”^{1 (p.207)} It also rests on the platform that there is enough for everyone to go around.¹

Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood ^TM  – This is a habit of listening.

In my view, the most effective leaders spend more time listening and learning from those around them rather than speaking. When a leader is more interested in expressing his or her views (hearing him or herself talk), it signals to workers and others that he or she is closed to new ideas. I have witnessed this type of leader countless times – some have been engaging while others are blowhards.  Leaders can be relatively quiet and remain highly effective.

Habit 6: Synergize ^TM – Look for synergies and connections between all of the previous habits.

It is important to make connections and build. “Synergy is the essence of principle-centered leadership” ^{1 (p. 262)}  and means “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”^{1 (p.262 - 263)} It is the habit of Win/Win ^TM together with cooperation leading to higher levels of trust.

Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw ^TM – Renew oneself for more energy.

For leaders this means recognizing that business (and life) is not a sprint but a marathon. Everyone needs to refresh. The habit encourages healthy living, eating and exercise. Taking time off for joyful purposes is also important.

Finally, Covey also suggests avoiding wasteful activities such as TV.¹ It is also vital for leaders to be deliberate about their time. Effective leaders, for example, have determined what is most important to deal with and what should be ignored. For example, a steady stream of emails does not mean that all need to be answered.

While Covey’s book is older now, it is a seminal work about the power of habits in our life; good habits lead to productive lives (and leadership). It is a very important read for executives and students alike -- it is just as timely today as it was in 1989 when it was published. I also recommend his sequel, The 8^th Habit.²

References

¹ Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster.

² Covey, S.R. (2004). The 8th Habit. New York: Simon & Schuster.