Leaders Fuel the Organization’s Fire

The flame of a candle will go out in the wind, but the wind will feed the flame of fire.  Leaders of organizations need to understand the balance of the people.  We must do our best to build organizations that are full of people that can not only withstand the wind, but that thrive on it.

So, what is the wind in this metaphor? It is different for everyone, but for most people, it is probably constructive criticism.  The key word in that phrase is “constructive,” which means, “helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement.”  If you are scolding or just unloading your frustrations on your people, this is not constructive criticism.  Be specific about what is not meeting the mark and help them understand how to move forward.  If they are emotional, get through the initial emotional meeting and follow up later for a more level-headed conversation.  Time usually brings perspective, and even if you didn’t see eye-to-eye at the time, it would likely be a more relaxed conversation the second time around.  At the very least, you will have had time to think through the previous discussion, and you will know each other’s opinions ahead of time.

Oxygen is in the leader’s gas can.  A leader uses oxygen to fuel their people’s flames, and it is positive reinforcement.  Much research has been done to show that people respond to this type of conditioning.  Simply by adding words of encouragement anytime, someone does good work, meets deadlines, and meets expectations is reason enough to let them know.  I am not saying to go overboard here.  Your response should be on par with the level of work they did.  If they met the deadline, then say thank you for meeting the deadline.  If they completed their work early and the work was far beyond your expectations, then perhaps some bonus time off is in order or recognition at the next staff meeting will do the trick.  The key is to encourage your people to continue to do great things.  Also, you should be working to make this a habit, not all of us are good at it, and I’m still working on it!

Any positive reinforcement when not warranted is poison.  This creates confusion and sends the worst message.  It tells your people several things that are terrible about your leadership skills.  It says, you don’t know the difference between good or bad behavior, you are afraid to be honest, you don’t know how to deal with negative behavior or negative feelings, or you are short-sighted because you would rather lie to them for ‘good feelings’ now than to have a difficult conversation at the moment and the potential for a better future.

All of this will help create people that can handle the challenges of life.  Life is hard; work is hard; getting promoted is hard; finding a new career is hard.  If leaders don’t take the time to help create “fires” instead of guarding our actions and language to the point that all we have are “candles” we will continue to face weak organizations that are unable to change and shift with the demands of the industry.

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Advertisements

If Everything is Important Nothing is Important

Leaders of every organization must have deliberate priorities.  Whether it is in the form of a strategic plan or extrapolated through observation of recent actions; there must be priorities.  This is basic management, or what you would learn in an entry-level management course in college, but so many leaders are still not making decisions on what the organization should focus. Calling prioritizing your actions a basic management skill is deceptive.  Although it is learned early in most management programs, it is far from basic.  Everything can seem important at the moment and as a leader, if you don’t give everyone the impression that you care about the things that they care about or are worried about, won’t they lose faith in your leadership?

The result of a leader that tells their people that they have other things to work on is not about telling them they are unimportant. It is about telling them they are capable of handling it on their own.  It is about autonomy, delegation, and trust.  A leader should be concerned with the problem but should also know that solving all their people’s problems will only teach them to keep bringing them their problems.  This is all about how the leader handles the situation from an interpersonal relationship perspective.  Listen to what they have to say; let them know you have faith in their capabilities and trust their judgment to make the call.  If they really can’t make the decision, give them the options to come back to you, but let them know you do not expect that they will need to. This will put some pressure on them to decide on a course of action. 

The follow up will speak volumes!  Always check back in on them and ask how it turned out.  If they made a mistake, be very careful not to hammer them, this will guarantee they never make a decision again.  Use this as a teaching moment and move on.  The trust gained from this kind of interaction will pay dividends for a very long time.

Taking this kind of action will free you up to make three or four areas of the organization your priority.  Then you can focus your attention there.  If you establish a priority of growth, but there are no efforts from the organization to grow, then you have not made your priorities important to your people.  Establish your priorities first, then use them during evaluations and awards periods to determine if people are internalizing them.  If you have established priorities and communicated them, but nobody is paying attention to them, you are not leading, and your people are following someone else.

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

People Will Hate You

For everything we do, creating, leading, decision making, someone will not like it.  Especially if you put your work out for others’ consumption.  A blog, a vlog, emails to coworkers about a new project you want to start, a picture on social media of a sculpture you made; some people will say negative things about your work.  It can be hard at first to hear people say you are an idiot and tear your work apart, but you need to get over it and realize it will happen.  You cannot be liked by everyone all the time. 

In an organizational leadership context, the people that work under you will not like all of your decisions, or your ideas, or your initiatives.  If you have formal or positional power over these people, you will have to work very hard to get them to tell you to your face when they disagree with you.  This conflict is uncomfortable, it does not feel good not to wrong or when people don’t like your idea, but debate and sensemaking strengthen ideas.  Questions about your ideas are often interpreted as attacks on the idea or attacks on you as a person.  This is rarely the case; we need people to question our ideas so we can exercise their validity before we put them into operation.  Without this key function, we lose precious time and energy playing catchup when we could have discovered the flaws and developed solutions through debate early in the process. 

Not everyone will have to the courage to be candid with you even when you are open to feedback and take time to cultivate an environment that embraces candor.  Some people simply lack the courage to disagree with people in person.  You will have people that enjoy criticizing you when you leave and trash your ideas when you are gone.  This is a culture issue; if you can get them out of the organization, it is best to do so.  I’m not talking about people that are having a healthy debate about issues in the workplace.  I’m talking about the people that will say negative things about any ideas just because they are a departure from the norm.  Find people that fit the culture you are going for, we don’t need people to be parrots, have the courage to dissent from the person in charge, challenge traditional thoughts, let people think you are crazy. 

Ultimately, we need to embrace the mental exercises that take us through ideas.  If you are unwilling to entertain your people’s different ideas with even a discussion, why should they support yours with anything more than minimal compliance?

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Natural Leaders Suck

Charisma, confidence, inspirational, and many other adjectives can be used to describe a natural leader.  Those traits can be positive or negative, depending on how they are used.  Before we continue, I want to make it clear that I don’t have anything against natural leaders, I am not a natural leader, but I know many great ones, I only mean to articulate how frustrating it can be to work with them when they don’t recognize that everyone does not have the same starting point.  I want to urge those natural leaders that read this to recognize a few points that may help make organizational life better!

Not everyone who wants to lead can be a leader, not everyone who can lead will be a leader, not everyone who leads should be a leader, but sometimes will and skill align to create great leaders.  So, my view of the age-old question of are leaders made or born is…both.  Some are born with it; some develop it through deliberate effort.

Leadership is not natural for everyone.  Natural leaders tend to forget that leadership does not come naturally to everyone.  Things that are intuitive and easy to a natural leader must be learned and experienced by others before they can add them to their repertoire.  I have had to spend countless hours, reading, talking, studying, failing, listening, and experimenting to be the leader I am today.  I still have so much more room to improve and sometimes get frustrated with my shortcomings, but they motivate me to keep learning.

Not everyone wants to lead.  Those that have learned to lead need to be careful of getting jaded by natural leaders or by those that don’t put in as much effort as they feel they had to.  You can’t force people to do what you do, help them if you can and move on.  Not everyone has a desire to lead which can seem frustrating to people that have worked so hard to become leaders.  We need to remember some people want to be technical experts and only want to stay at that level.  They don’t want to get to the point that they have to manage people and deal with that entirely different skillset.  We need these people, they are the backbone of most organizations, so don’t promote them into positions that don’t utilize their skills or that make them unhappy.   Let them do what they love and where their skills align with their passion.  There are plenty of others that want to lead people.

If you want to lead and it doesn’t come naturally to you, then once you decide to learn to lead you will enter a long journey that will never really end.  You will learn more than just leadership.  I’m not talking about knowing different leadership theories or famous leaders and their books, but real leadership skills.  You will also learn more about yourself than you want to know!  Get used to being uncomfortable and get after it!

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Organizations are Like Hair

When I was young and wild, I had beautiful hair.  To be honest, I’ve never cared for hair since I was in the 9th grade I’ve been cutting it as short as possible, and I’ve been doing it long enough now that I have no idea what color my hair is anymore. So, although I do not fit the bill, the metaphor I’m about to make, still works.  That metaphor is that organizations are like hair.

I know people that cut their hair every two weeks.  They never change the style, they never experiment.  They know what works and they are the guys that say things like, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it”, “you don’t mess with the classics.”  They keep tight control over their hair and never let it get out of sorts.  This example shows what most leaders and managers want in their organizations.  They fight to stay standardized and look to control as much of their processes as possible.  There are many organizations that this works for, but this kind of leadership does not leave room for innovation and progress.  You can’t adjust processes and functions when you are doing the same things.

Additionally, you can’t change your hairstyle in any meaningful way without going through that weird medium length sloppy-hair stage.  You know, the stage where some will only lay flat and others will only stick straight up.  This is the stage where you test your commitment to the new style.  How much do you want it? If you are weak, or if you aren’t sure of what you want, you will quit and go back to what you know.  This stage in the organization is where most leaders lose their nerve and think the new efforts have failed.  On many occasions, this early exit is a tragic mistake which causes future efforts to die before they even happen.  Leaders must accept there is going to be growing pains with progress.

Eventually, you will have to cut your hair.  That doesn’t mean you have to go back to your old style, but you do need to get it back under control and set things right again.  Organizationally, this means you have to pull the crazy experimenting back a bit and look at providing more stable processes.  There will always be a need to experiment and take some risk, but after letting your people get wild and outside of the box, you will need to bring all that back in and get the balance back to the organization.  Too much wild-wild-west type of stuff in the organization can be exhausting so you will want to keep some of the momentum going for progress, without so much risk and experimenting.

So, let your hair grow and give your people some room to try new stuff!

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Do Tradition and Heritage Hold You Back?

Standardization ruins organizations.  Once we get to the point that we are trying to make everyone do the same thing, without thought, we are doomed.  Most organizations and the people within them get into a rhythm.  They have the same annual events, traditions, and these events are rarely discussed with any serious intent.  The members of the organization are expected to uphold these traditions, and the leaders often expect everyone to participate.  But do these traditions do anything positive for the organization?

It depends.  Most of our traditions are no longer providing value to our processes but are more about culture.  But even traditions that contribute to culture can be problematic.  The military’s Change of Command Ceremony is one such example.  When the ceremony was created, it was done so out of necessity.  Most personnel in a military unit did not know who the commander of the unit was, and it caused much confusion on the battlefield.  This ceremony was designed to show everyone who the new commander was to alleviate that problem, and it worked.  Fast-forward to today, and we continue the tradition, but there is rarely an occasion where members will not know who the unit’s commander is, but we still spend weeks preparing for these ceremonies every two years.  The commander’s and their families enjoy them, and it is a great honor for them to earn a command, but almost everyone else is there because they are required.  The officer/enlisted structure is also antiquated and has lost its usefulness.  On the positive side, the military’s uniforms, many of the customs to include saluting, standing for senior members, reveille, retreat, taps, and countless others add to the discipline and positive culture of the units.

And what about the senior members of the organization?  Could they be holding back innovation?  Much like standardization, continuity is a term we must be careful with.  There is a point that continuity stops helping and starts holding the unit back from progress.  Something that was tried in the nineties may very well work now.  Not because we are better, but because technology may have made things easier than they were in the past.  We need to ensure our senior members value change and progress over standardization and continuity.

We must be cautious of sacrificing any future progress for short-term gains.  It might be tempting, but the short-term gains that too much standardization and continuity provide are addictive and will become the culture your organization begins to form around.  Soon enough, your organization will become irrelevant because short-term gains cannot compete with long-term progress.  Of course, this is not easy, and nobody has the perfect answer, but we must be brave enough to have the conversation.  It may feel bad to say the DoD no longer needs a separate officer and enlisted core, especially from the officer’s perspective, but it’s a conversation we must have, or we risk becoming too caught up in tradition.

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Eliminate Loadmasters

I decided to stick with the “eliminate” theme for this string of articles even though it causes a little more drama than is necessary.  It is an excellent way to determine if the person responding has read the article, or merely read the headline.  Much like my last article, I do not seriously mean to eliminate all loadmasters.  They play a vital role in the Air Force’s global mobility mission.  What I propose is that we significantly alter when and how they perform the loading/unloading functions.

There has been a program in the Air Transportation world called APEX or Aerial Port Expeditor for many years and the Phase II program before that.  It is quite simply a program that trains a 2T2 to perform the role of the loadmaster.  This ability provides an aerial port the flexibility to load aircraft long before the aircrew arrives and to start right away once maintenance gives the green light.  But the program is showing secondary effects that are beginning to play out.

Loadmasters are losing opportunities to load at aerial ports with the APEX program which is reducing their proficiency.  Additionally, it is becoming somewhat difficult for them to maintain their qualifications or currency because the port is loading many of the aircraft.

To solve this, I have heard discussions about potentially limiting the amount of aircraft the port can APEX, or only uploads that meet weight or pallet minimums will be eligible.  To be blunt, these are dumb solutions, and I hope we discuss them just long enough to discover how this would not make the Air Force better but how it serves to maintain the status quo.  So, what is the solution?

This is a difficult problem to fix, but I think it is essential to move forward instead of staying the same.  We can automatically eliminate the options of getting rid of the APEX program or limiting it.  The solution I see as being the most beneficial is by creating a Flying Port Dawg program.

The FPD would be modeled after the Flying Crew Chief program.  Why recreate the wheel if someone has already completed the work?  This should use the program only for air-land operations.  No air-drop missions yet!  And only for C5 and C17 aircraft.  We could start with simple channel missions to more robust ports to build the program and then expand it from there to support contingency missions and SAAMs.  There would be a need for additional training to ensure they perform any loadmaster responsibilities performed while in flight, but it would also be an excellent opportunity to look at those tasks to determine if they are still important.  And much like the FCC program, when they are at home station, they are working in their assigned section.  Hopefully not ATOC, since I’ve already tried to reimagine its functionality.

There is a manpower cost to this program, but if implemented, there would be an excess of loadmasters to realign.  This is not meant to start a battle of who is more important, but to highlight that much of the tasks performed by these two AFSCs overlap and the difference in who does the work between a 1A2 or a 2T2 is impossible to distinguish.

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!